Skip to main content

Admission to Class XI not automatic if school switches affiliation

Students who pass the class X Board examination in a CBSE school cannot claim automatic admission to class XI in the same school if the institution switches its affiliation to the State Board for higher secondary classes, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) has ruled.

Allowing a writ appeal preferred by a private school based in Thoothukudi district, Justices Nooty Ramamohana Rao and S.S. Sundar said the schooling facility offered by such institutions must be considered to have come to an end when students pass out of Class X. “It is for the student concerned to exercise the option of either continuing in CBSE pattern in Class XI and XII or switching over to State Board syllabus. If a student decides to continue his studies in Standard XI and under the CBSE pattern, he has to obviously seek admission in some other educational institution where such facilities are available,” the Bench said.

“On the other hand, if he [the student] opts to switch over to State Board of education, then he can seek continuation in the same school. But even in such a case, he has to apply for admission afresh,” the judge said concurring with submissions made by senior counsel Isaac Mohanlal appearing for the Principal of Sakthi Vinayagar Hindu Vidyalaya in Thoothukudi.

The lawyer submitted that though 93 students had passed out of Class X from the appellant school in 2015-16, which was affiliated to the CBSE till class X, all of them could not be accommodated in higher secondary classes since the institution offered only two groups with biology and mathematics as major subjects in Classes XI and XII under the State Board syllabus. Nevertheless, agreeing equally with G. Prabhu Rajadurai, counsel for a student who was not allowed to continue his education in the appellant school, that the norms of admission to Class XI should have been notified much earlier, the judges directed the State government to instruct all private schools in the State to publish the admission norms in advance and display them on the notice boards.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...