//
archives

Education

This tag is associated with 7 posts

Student – A fresh Mark Sheet not necessary to issue on improvement examination result when division not changed – “Whether Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (the University) is liable to issue mark sheet to the students, who are permitted to appear in the examination for improving division of M.Com examination (the subsequent-examination) under Ordinance 24 of the University (the Ordinance), even if the division does not change?”= The High Court answered the question in the affirmative. We disagree. Ordinance No.24 of the University does not oblige it to issue a fresh mark sheet to a student who does not improve his division on taking a subsequent examination held for improving the division.= Ordinance No. 24 entitles a student to take a repeat examination only to improve the division obtained. If there is no improvement in the division after the repeat examination, there is no occasion for the University to issue a fresh degree to that candidate. The question of issuing a fresh mark sheet, if there is an improvement in the marks after the repeat examination, simply does not arise from the plain language and scheme incorporated in Ordinance No. 24. 19. Under these circumstances there is no option but to set aside the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court and allow this appeal. We do so but with no order as to costs.

 published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40658  NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.……6794……….. OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 14896 OF 2013)   Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University & Anr. …..Appellants Versus Gopal Mishra …..Respondent J U D G M E N T Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In … Continue reading

Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 (Act No.37 of 1995) Apex court declared sec.4 (1) also as ultravires which was omitted by Division bench – partly allowed the appeal confirming other findings of Division bench,= the Division Bench allowed the writ petition in part. The challenge in the writ petition was to the amendment introduced to Sections 2, 4, 9 and 17, as well as insertion of Sections 31-A, 31-B, 31-C, 37-A, 37-B to the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 (Act No.37 of 1995), hereinafter referred to as “1995 Act”. The Division Bench upheld the amendment to Section 4(1) of 1995 Act. The Division Bench also held that the amendment to Sections 9(2), 31-A(1) and (2), 31-B, 31-C, 37-B(a), 37-B(b), 37- B(d) and 37-B (e) are intra-vires. The Division Bench further held that the proviso to Section 4 is intra-vires, as far as it provides that no Centres shall be established without prior approval of the State Government and no centre would mean no further Centres excluding the existing ones. The Division Bench further held that the said proviso as far as it stipulated that no courses should be conducted or run without the prior approval of the State Government is ultra-vires, as far as, it related to the present stream of courses and the existing Centres. Section 37-A was held to be ultra-vires in its entirety. Section 37-B (e) was held to be not ultra-vires.= We also hold that the said provision does not in any way offend Article 14 of the Constitution, nor does it affect the autonomy of the appellant University. Apart from the above challenges, no other submission relating to the other amended provisions were seriously argued before us. 114. In the light of our above conclusion, this appeal is partly allowed. We hold that the amended Section 4(1) under Act 5 of 2000 inclusive of the introduction of proviso to the said Section is ultra-vires of the Constitution and the same is liable to be set aside. In other respects, the judgment of the Division Bench stands confirmed. The application for intervention considered, no merits, the same is dismissed.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40500 Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6736 OF 2004 Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya …Appellan t – Versus – State of M.P. & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Division … Continue reading

The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, etc.) Act, 1995 = a teacher with mental illness failed to attend her duties and as such she was removed from service due to lack of reply from her. after 3 she filed a complaint before commissioner for reinstatement as she was dismissed when she was under mental distress = For about three years, no action was taken by appellant. In the year 2007 she filed an application before the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act. The said application was registered as Case No. 253/2007. In the said application, the appellant took plea that the order of dismissal passed by the authorities while she was suffering from mental illness was in violation of Section 47(1) of the Act. The appellant requested for her reinstatement with full back­wages.= whether the Commissioner under Section 62 of the Act can look into the legality of the order of dismissal from service of a disabled person, if it comes to his notice that the said person with disabilities has been deprived of his rights. whether the appellant was entitled for benefits under Section 47(1) of the Act. 13. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act was enacted in 1995 pursuant to meet the following object and reasons: (i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii)to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, vis­à­vis non­ disabled persons; (iv)to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v)to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and (vi)to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream. “47 ­ Non ­discrimination in Government employments ­ (1) No establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service: Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits: Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. (2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his disability: Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section.”= Learned Single Judge by interim order dated 11th January, 2008 directed the respondent to reinstate the appellant and to pay her regular salary w.e.f 1.2.2008 on the following terms: “8. RULE (a)By interim order, there shall be stay against the impugned order of the Commissioner to the extent that the petitioner shall not be required to pay any backwages to the respondent, but the petitioner shall reinstate the respondent in service by paying regular salary to her from 1.2.2008. (b)It is further observed that directed that the petitioner shall get respondent examined through a Government Doctor of their choice and if it is so opined by the doctor, such duty may be assigned to the respondent at a place or a nearby place, where she can comfortably and conveniently, in a safe atmosphere, discharge duty.”- Inspite of the same, the respondent authority have neither reinstated the appellant nor paid salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008. So, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong and, thereby, cannot deny the benefit of wages to which the appellant was entitled pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on 11th January, 2008. -There is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondent authority got the appellant examined by a Government Doctor to determine the duty to be assigned to her. In view of her reinstatement, now the respondent authority may get opinion of the doctor for assigning her duty. In case the appellant is not in a position to perform the normal duty because of her mental condition, the competent authority will apply Proviso to Section 47(1) of the said Act. Having regard to the fact that we have upheld the order passed by the Commissioner, we direct the authorities to reinstate the appellant in service immediately and to pay her regular salary every month. The appellant shall be entitled to arrears of salary w.e.f. 1.2.2008 which the respondent shall pay within three months, else the appellant shall become entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1.2.2008 till the actual payment. The appeal is allowed in the manner indicated above and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40492 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9324 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.7647 of 2011) GEETABEN  RATILAL PATEL          … APPELLANT VERSUS DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER          … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th November, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in L.P.A.No. 1988 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal   preferred   by  the  appellant  and  affirmed   the order   dated   10th  December,   2008   passed   by   learned Single   Judge   in   Writ   Petition­Special   … Continue reading

‘rule of seniority’- On being selected by the District Level Committee which had considered the candidature of those sponsored by the Employment Exchanges, respondent Nos.1 to 13 were appointed as Masters in the subjects of Science, Maths and Social Studies, respondent No.14 was appointed as Physical Training Instructor and respondent No.15 was appointed as Hindi Teacher purely on ad hoc basis between 1994 and 1996 by the District Education Officers.- None of the aforesaid judgments can be read as laying down a proposition of law that a person who is appointed on purely ad hoc basis for a fixed period by an authority other than the one who is competent to make regular appointment to the service and such appointment is not made by the specified recruiting agency is entitled to have his ad hoc service counted for the purpose of fixation of seniority. Therefore, the respondents, who were appointed as Masters in different subjects, Physical Training Instructor and Hindi Teacher on purely ad hoc basis without following the procedure prescribed under the 1955 Rules are not entitled to have their seniority fixed on the basis of total length of service. As a corollary to this, we hold that the direction given by the High Court for refixation of the respondents’ seniority by counting the ad hoc service cannot be approved. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5947 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 29274 of 2009) State of Haryana and others … Appellants Versus Vijay Singh and others … Respondents   J U D G M E N T G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. Leave granted. … Continue reading

2. The applicants are an old established non-profit organization engaged in imparting knowledge through the system of education thereby creating a meaningful, vibrant and responsive atmosphere of mutual trust leading to personality development of its students since the year 1995. The applicant’s society consists of committed professionals, academicians, reputed administrators and social workers who continuously provide innovative management education with a gobal perspective. The society is well recognized as a philanthropic, social organization which aims at institutional development and imparting holistic education for all round personality development of its students. 13. The impugned trade mark is MSM programme which is an abbreviation of Master of School Management. The respondent has not filed their counter statement to state the reason for the adoption of the trade mark. The applicants though do not claim that MSM is their trade mark but have submitted that the Master School of Management (MSM) functions as a distinct management institution to develop managers with global perspective and to equip them with requisite skills in management, control and decision making since the year 1996-97. The respondent No.1 admission is that they adopted and used the trade mark in the year 1999 who are definitely the subsequent users. The respondent therefore cannot claim to be proprietor of the trade mark impugned.

  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD    Guna Complex Annexe-I, 2nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600018  ORA/175-177/2009/TM/CH THURSDAY, THIS THE  12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011   Hon’ble Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan                   … Chairman       Hon’ble  Ms. S. Usha                                                    … Vice-Chairman   Siyaram Kasturi Devi Educational Society, 182, Shankar Market, Abu Lane, Meerut (U.P). Which … Continue reading

private education institution = fees regulations = When the State Government accepted the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission for revision of the pay and allowances of the employees with effect from 01.01.2006, different private engineering and technical colleges and institutions sought revision of the fees for students admitted in their colleges and institutions before the Fee Regulatory Committee on the ground that they have to pay their teaching and non-teaching staff the revised pay and allowances as per the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission, but the Fee Regulatory Committee declined to revise the fees. = “10(3). The fee structure so determined by the Fee Regulatory Committee shall be binding to the unaided professional educational colleges or institutions for a period of three years and the fee so determined shall be applicable to a student who is admitted to a professional educational college or institution in that academic year and shall not be revised till the completion of his professional course in that college or institution.” = We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and direct that the increase in cost suffered by the respondents-colleges/institutions on account of the higher pay and allowances payable to the teaching and non- teaching staff on the basis of the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission will be taken into consideration by the Fee Regulatory Committee while determining the fees for the academic years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and subsequent period of three years in accordance with the

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8543 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.34150 OF 2010) Fee Regulatory Committee …… Appellant Versus Kalol Institute of Management, Etc. …… Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8544 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NO.34200 OF 2010), CIVIL APPEAL NO. … Continue reading

On December 5, 1991, a notice was issued under the hand of the Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, inviting applications from persons working in the department for appointment to the post of P.G. Assistant in M.A. (Political Science) in the Government Higher

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7390 OF 2011 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.20405 OF 2008] V. GOPAL … APPELLANT VERSUS P. GANASELVAUDAYAKUMARI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. On December 5, 1991, a … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,881,400 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com