(i) Constitution of India, Article 226 - Writ petitions filed by the Associations and the Societies under Article 226 are duly maintainable especially  when  they  have  claimed infringement of their rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H) [Para 26]


(ii) Constitution of India, Article 162 - Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 2(e),  2(1)  - Epidemic Disease Act, 1897, Section 2 -  Directions issued by the Director, School Education to non-Government Educational Institutions under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897 -  State does have the power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to issue executive instructions and more so in a situation where the entire country is in a lock-down - Order deferring the fee or exempting the payment of fee although is not a factor to control the disease and may not technically fall within the ambit of Disaster Management Act, 2005 or the Epidemic Disease Act, however, the steps taken like the lockdown to control and reduce the exposure to the risk of the disease in the present case has definitely resulted in loss of business, work and daily earning leading to the facing of financial crunch and hardship by many - Therefore, the concern of the State to mitigate and avert the trickle down the effects as a temporary measures is not totally out of line – Covid19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 37]


(iii) Constitution of India, Article 226 - Judicial review - Policy decision of the government  -  Power of Courts - Right to interfere -  It is a settled proposition of law that in policy decision the Courts have no right to interfere, hence not open to judicial review - Except it is doubtful whether the impugned orders (Directions issued by the Director, School Education to non-Government Educational Institutions under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897)  can be termed as policy decisions - Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the same amount to policy decision, it is an equally settled law that judicial review can always be exercised, in case the same is arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable – Covid19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)                                                                                                                            [Para 38]

Held, in such circumstances, it is the duty of the Court to exercise its power under Article 226, to impart justice. In the present case, the writ filed on behalf of the un-aided educational institutions receiving no help from the State but are required to continue to pay the salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff as also maintain the institutions without the corresponding right to recover the expenditure from their only source of income, i.e. the school fee from students, even though, being temporary in nature, cannot be thrown out at the threshold. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 38]


(iv) Schools fees - Admission fees  - Schools can charge the admission fee but only when the school reopens -  The paying capacity of the parents is ancilliary to the opening of the lockdown and not with the reopening of the Schools - Although the lockdown was partially opened on 04.05.2020, however, the same was further substantially lifted on 08.06.2020 - Hence, to remove all confusions, the schools should be allowed to recover their admission fee now that the lock-down stands lifted on 08.06.2020 to a great degree – Covid19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)   [Para 52]


(v) Schools fees - Tuition Fee - Dispute qua charging of Tuition Fee by the schools which are not providing online classes -  It is not disputed that even if schools do not provide online education, the schools are still required to meet the expenses, i.e. Full salary of the teachers and non-teaching staff as well as building, electricity expenses etc.. - The schools that are not giving online classes are not exempted from paying the salary of its teaching and non-teaching staff -  Hence, there is no rational in laying down such a classification especially when the obligations and basic expenses of all private un-aided schools remain the same irrespective of whether they are conducting online classes or not -  In these circumstances, there cannot be a separate direction for the schools who are not offering online classes -  Therefore, direction to the privately unaided Institutions who are not giving online classes not to charge tuition fee for the concerned period is definitely discriminatory and arbitrary - Constitution of India, Article 226 – Covid19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)   [Para 53, 54, 55, 79(b)]

Held, All schools irrespective whether they offered online classes during the lock-down period or not, are entitled to collect the tuition fee. However, they will continue to endeavour and impart online/ distance learning so that education is not adversely impacted due to the present or future lockdowns imposed due to COVID-19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 79(b)]


(vi) Schools fees - Annual Charges - Stated to cover building charges, transportation charges, charges for meals etc. - In order to maintain the balance, so that neither of the parties suffer, it would be appropriate that the school management works out only the actual expenditure incurred under the 'Annual Charges' for the period the school remained closed due to lockdown including summer period and recover only such genuine expenditure incurred by it and shall not recover any charges for this period for any co-curricular activity towards which no expenditure was incurred -  This Court has consciously observed 'for the period the school remained closed including summer period' as there is no difference in the expenditure whether the school was closed on account of lockdown or summer vacations. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 66, 79(c)]

Held, The school management of each schools shall  work  out their actual expenditure incurred under the annual  charges for the period the school remained closed and  recover only such genuine expenditure incurred by them  including actual transport charges and actual building charges but shall not recover any charge for this period  for any activity or facility towards which no expenditure was incurred. However, the annual charges for the  remaining period shall be recovered as already  fixed by the school. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 79(c)]


(vii) School fees - Increase in school fee for the year 2020-21 over and above those charged in the year 2019-20 - It may be correct that the directions amount to infringement in the rights granted to the unaided schools under the Act but no right is absolute and the Court has already dealt with the authority of the Sate to issue executive orders in certain circumstances - The direction is only an advisory but it would be in the fitness of the things if the schools restrain themselves from increasing the fee for the year 2020-21 and continue to charge the same as prevalent for the year 2019-20, keeping in mind the overall impact on the economy and every institution having been hit by the same - Some  sacrifice,  concession,  adjustment  should  be  made  and  contributed by each one - The schools shall restrain themselves for the reasons, as mentioned above, from increasing the fee for the year 2020-21 and adopt the same fee structure as of 2019- 20 – Covid19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 70, 79(d)(h)]


(viii) Schools – School fees – Difficulty in paying fees  - Interest of genuine parents who are actually in difficulty and are not in a position to pay the total fee - Is already safe-guarded by the impugned order, dated 14.05.2020 itself, which reads as under: “(iv) School managements are further advised to sympathetically consider the cases of students whose parents livelihoods may have been adversely impacted due to the lockdown, for fee waiver/concession and that no child may be denied access to education (online or regular) on non-payment of fee.” - Any parent not able to pay the school fee in the above terms may file their application alongwith necessary proof about their financial status, which shall be looked into by the school authority and, after looking into it sympathetically, give concession or exempt the entire fee, as the case may be - In case the parent is still aggrieved, in any manner, with an adverse decision by the school on his application, he may approach the Regulatory Body, so constituted under Section 7 of the Punjab Regulation of fee of Un-aided Educational Institutions Act, 2016 - No parent shall misuse the concession by laying a false claim – Covid19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 74, 79(e)]


(ix) School – School fees – Increase of by the school - In case any school is facing a financial crunch for not having charged the increased fee for the year 2020-21, may move a representation to the District Education Officer alongwith its proof of the same, who shall look into it and pass appropriate orders within three weeks of the receipt of such an application - However, this may be exercised only in a very hard case where the school is facing financial crunch and has no reserved resources to meet the expenses – Covid19.  #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 79(f)]


(x) School – School fees –Schools should allow the option to parents to pay fees on monthly or quarterly basis - Covid19. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 79 (h)]


(xi) School – Covid19 - School managements should not resort to removal of any teacher or reduction in the monthly salary or total emoluments of teaching/ non-teaching staff. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 79(h)]



(xii) School – No  child  will  be  deprived of attending the schools and online classes on account of non payment of fees -  There is no modification in the direction No.(iv) of the order  dated  14.05.2020 i.e. “ (iv) School managements are further advised to sympathetically consider the cases of students whose parents livelihoods may have been adversely impacted due to the lockdown, for fee waiver/ concession and that no child may be denied access to education (online or regular) on non-payment of fee.”  - That  no  child  will  be  deprived of attending the schools and online classes -  However, the same is subject to the parent of such a child moving an application in terms of direction 79 (e) above of this order and final decision on the said application. #2020 SCeJ 1046 (P&H)  [Para 79 (i)]

  1. Education - Admission  Disability - Court cannot assess the percentage of disability - High Court was not justified in interfering with the selection process in exercise of writ jurisdiction and declaring the disability of the respondent at 40% and to consider his case in the category of physically handicapped persons  Prospectus provided that  candidates should not submit along with application form, any medical certificate to the effect that they are physically challenged - Percentage of disability has to be determined by the Medical Board, which is specifically mentioned in the prospectus -  Board has assessed the disability of vision at 20% and issued the certificate -  Certificate granted by the District Head Quarters Hospital,  submitted by the respondent  was 40% - Court cannot assess the percentage of disability - Medical Board has been constituted as per the norms of prospectus and it has clearly recorded its opinion as regards the disability of vision of the respondent. (2016)3 PLRSC 97
  2. Education - Admission - MBBS seats in the State of  Punjab - Father of the petitioner is a Sr. Accountant in A.G. (A&E), Department of Punjab - The petitioner has passed his 10+2 examination from Chandigarh - Hasbeen ignored only on the ground that he had not passed the qualifying examination of 10+2 from the State of Punjab - Order set aside. (173) PLR
  3. Education - Admission - University - Baba Farid University - Gained admission in M.D. Course with the Government College, Patiala - Secured admission in P.G.I. Chandigarh sought return of original documents from Government College, Patiala - Clause only prohibits a student who leaves the postgraduate course from seeking admission in any postgraduate course in the State of Punjab - The admission which he has secured at the PGI is not the institute in State of Punjab but in the Union Territory of Chandigarh although it is the capital of the State of Punjab - I cannot apply this clause to the students securing admission in the 3rd respondent Institute - Mandate against the respondents for return of all the original documents which she had submitted along with transfer certificate from the college. (178) PLR 
  4. Education - Admission - University - Baba Farid University - Objection is that Rs.15 lacs must be seen as the amount which is required to be paid by a candidate who enjoyed stipend or emolument from the Government and since the petitioner had been in the college only for less than two weeks, he had not availed of any stipend and obtained no benefit in order that he could be compelled by the department of having to make the payment to the respondent - According to him, there is no consideration involved in the transaction to make the petitioner liable - Stipend - Refund. (178) PLR 
  5. Education - Admission to diploma in veterinary Science and Animal Technology for Session 2014 - 1st Counselling - A candidate who was absent became ineligible for selection at that counselling - If he had been absent in the 1st counselling and seats had all been filled up, there was no question of staking a claim at all later - If there are vacancies and the college goes through a 2nd counselling, a person who had lost out in the 1st counselling will still be able to stake his claim in the order of his merit, so long as there is no specific disqualification spelt out in the prospectus in that regard. (178) PLR
  6. Education - Admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course - Petitioner being a Jat could have applied in EBP category or should have applied in SBC category - Since, the petitioner is a Jat and was supposed to apply in the SBC category because the EBP category was meant for the Economically Backward persons in General Caste and not for the person belonging to a caste which has already been declared as `Special Backward Class', therefore, the petitioner at the time of applying for admission did not belong to General Caste rather she had already turned into a `Special Backward Class' - In the `Special Backward Classes', the Government included (i) Bishnoi; (ii) Jat; (iii) Jat Sikh; (iv) Ror and (v) Tyagi - Petitioner cannot be allowed to consume the reservation offered to a different category namely EBP of General Caste category. (173) PLR
  7. Education - Admission to MBBS Course - Sports Category -= Reservation - That 1% reservation for Sports Category to be calculated without deducting the reservation meant for the Scheduled Castes. (174) PLR
  8. Education - Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University - Policy not to grant permission to any faculty and non-teaching employees for attending evening classes - However, there is a provision in the policy to get education through distance course from approved University and for this purpose leave will be granted for examination - There is no bar to get education but the only bar is that the permission to do for evening classes shall not be granted - This is a reasonable restriction imposed by the  University - Constitution of India, Article 226. (183) PLR
  9. Education - Examination - As it is, the system of examination pursued over the decades, has been accepted by all who are rationale, responsible and sensible, to be an accredited one, for comparative evaluation of the merit and worth of candidates vying for higher academic pursuits - It is thus necessary, for all the role players in the process, to secure and sustain the confidence of the public in general and the student fraternity in particular in the system by its unquestionable trustworthiness - Such a system is endorsed because of its credibility informed with guarantee of fairness, transparency authenticity and sanctity - There cannot be any compromise with these imperatives at any cost -  All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Test , 2015.  Held, The disclosures in the investigation suggest that the benefit of answer key has been availed by several candidates taking the examination, by illegal means - Having regard to the modus operandi put in place, the numbers of cell phones and other devices used, it is not unlikely that many more candidates have availed such undue advantage, being a part of the overall design and in the process have been unduly benefited qua the other students who had made sincere and genuine endeavours to solve the answer paper on the basis of their devoted preparation and hard labour - In view of the widespread network, that has operated, as the status reports disclose and the admission of the persons arrested including some beneficiary candidates, we are of the opinion, in view of the strong possibilities of identification of other candidates as well involved in such mal practices, that the examination has become a suspect.  (2016)3 PLRSC. 721
  10. Education - Examination - Segregation only of the already 44 identified candidates stated to be the beneficiaries of the unprincipled manoeuvre by withholding their results for the time being, in our comprehension cannot be the solution to the problem that confronts all of us - Not only thereby, if the process is allowed to advance, it would be pushed to a vortex of litigation pertaining thereto in the foreseeable future, the prospects of the candidates would not only remain uncertain and tentative, they would also remain plagued with the prolonged anguish and anxiety if involved in the ordeal of court cases -  Acting on this option, would in our estimate, amount to driving knowingly the students, who are not at fault, to an uncertain future with their academic career in jeopardy on many counts - Further, there would also be a lurking possibility of unidentified beneficiary candidates stealing a march over them, on the basis of the advantages availed by them through the underhand dealings as revealed - Having regard to the fact, that the course involved with time would yield the future generations of doctors of the country, who would be in charge of public health, their inherent merit to qualify for taking the course can by no means be compromised -   All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Test , 2015. (2016)3 PLRSC. 721
  11. Education - It goes without saying that there is a marked distinction between a `fake degree' and an `unrecognized degree' - In the case of `fake degree', the institution can be genuine but the `degree' can still be fake, being not issued by such recognized institution - Contrarily, an unrecognized fake university, may have stamped its so-called diploma/degree/certificates which are not `forged' documents in legal parlance but are otherwise worthless - The case in hand appears to be of second category as the B.Ed. degree obtained by the first respondent was from a fake university which was never recognised by UGC.  (183) PLR
  12. Education - Reexamination  - The abrogation of the examination, would result in some inconvenience to all concerned and that same extra time would be consumed for holding a fresh examination with renewed efforts therefor - This however, is the price, the stakeholders would have to suffer in order to maintain the impeccable and irrefutable sanctity and credibility of a process of examination, to assess the innate worth and capability of the participating candidates for being assigned inter se merit positions commensurate to their performance based on genuine and sincere endeavours -  All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Test , 2015. Held,   It is a collective challenge that all the role-players would have to meet, by rising to the occasion and fulfill the task ahead at the earliest, so as to thwart and abort the deplorable design of a mindless few seeking to highjack the process for selfish gain along with the unscrupulous beneficiaries thereof. Though the Board has taken a plea that having regard to the enormity of the exercise to be undertaken, the same cannot be redone before four months, we would emphasize that this is an occasion where it (the Board) ought to gear up in full all its resources in the right spirit, in coordination with all other institutions that may be involved so as to act in tandem and hold the examination afresh at the earliest.  Held further, We are not unaware that in holding the present examination as well as in participating in the exercise, all genuinely concerned have put in tireless efforts. All these however have been rendered futile by a handful of elements seeking to reap undue financial gain by subjecting the process to their evil manoeuvres. We have thus no hesitation to order that the All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Test stands cancelled. (2016)3 PLRSC. 721
  13. Education - Reexamination -  Schedule of dates for examination - Conscious are we that, as a consequence, the All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Test 2015 would have to be annulled, thereby disturbing the time schedule fixed by this court in Mridul Dhar  and Priya Gupta - We perceive that in the extraordinary fact situation where the examination involved is vitiated to the core by use of deceitful means and measures to benefit some, the consideration of departure from the said time schedule per se would not be a wholesome justification to sustain the otherwise tainted exercise - The time frame fixed by this court in the above cases, in our opinion, was not intended to be inflexibly adhered to in the situation of the kind with which we are seised of - The schedule of dates was fixed, so as to streamline and discipline the process of admission by its uniform application - We are of the understanding that the annulment of the examination and the consequences to follow, in the singular facts and circumstances of the cases, would not in any way be repugnant to the renderings of this court in Mridul Dhar (supra) and Priya Gupta (supra) - The course we proposed to embark upon, is the demand of the situation based on contemporaneous official records and that facts corroborated thereby - The pleadings of the Board, that its answer key had been prepared whereafter the challenges from the candidates have been received and have been verified with the subject experts, in the teeth of the disclosures in the investigation lack in persuasion to save the examination. (2016)3 PLRSC. 721
  14. Education - Reexamination - All India Pre-Medical and Pre-Dental Test , 2015 - Having regard to the uncompromising essentiality of a blemishless process of examination involving public participation, we have no alternative but to hold that the examination involved, suffers from an infraction of its expected requirement of authenticity and credence - We are conscious of the fact that every examination being conducted by a human agency is likely to suffer from some shortcomings, but deliberate inroads into its framework of the magnitude and the nature, as exhibited, in the present case, demonstrate a deep seated and pervasive impact, which ought not to be disregarded or glossed over, lest it may amount to travesty of a proclaimed mechanism to impartially judge the comparative merit of the candidates partaking therein - If such an examination is saved, merit would be a casualty generating a sense of frustration in the genuine students, with aversion to the concept of examination - The possibility of leaning towards unfair means may also be the ultimate fall out - Even if, one undeserving candidate, a beneficiary of such illegal machination, though undetected is retained in the process it would be in denial of, the claim of more deserving candidates - At the present, the examination stands denuded of its sanctity as it is not possible to be cleansed of all the participating beneficiary candidates with certainty - We are thus, on an overall assessment of the materials on record, left unpersuaded to sustain the examination - We must observe that till this stage of the investigation, no conscious lapse or omission on the part of the Board, contributing to the otherwise appalling mischief has surfaced. (2016)3 PLRSC. 721
  15. Education - Teacher - His result is in minus for 8th and 10th class during the relevant period - Minor punishment was awarded to the petitioner, stopping his one annual increment without cumulative effect - Petitioner has further tried to preach that there should not be unnecessary pressure on the teacher for showing good result - Such kind of averments were not at all expected from a litigant like the petitioner, who is doing a noble job of teacher - Petitioner cannot absolve himself from his responsibility as a teacher - Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that respondent authorities committed no error of law, while passing the impugned orders. (178) PLR 
  16. Education - University admission - Prospectus - Has the force of law - It has been clearly provided under Clause 8A(i) that compartment candidates should be placed in compartment in one subject only at 10 + 2 level to be eligible for admission - Had compartment in two subjects - Was not entitled to admission. (175) PLR
  17. Education - Wrong information in online application - Online application form, is also signed by the petitioner herself who could not take the plea that it is due to inadvertence that she has filled up Science stream and also the marks which does not belong to her - Thus, what is required on the part of the candidates applying for admission specially in the case of online application form is that they should be more vigilant and practice before filling up the application form before it is actually sent online.  (174) PLR
  18. Education Department - Was appointed as Social Studies Mistress (TGT) - Had served for about 20 years to the satisfaction of the petitioner authorities - Had obtained B.Ed. degree from an unrecognised university - While in service had passed B.Ed. from a recognized university - Had been ordered to be reinstated and no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tribunal to that extent - Held is not entitled to backwages and her reinstatement in service shall be on notional basis only.  Held, that nevertheless, it is difficult to accept that mere on passing B.Ed. from a recognized university in the year 2012, the misconduct attributed to the first respondent has completely obliterated. The cause of her remaining outside the service for a considerable long period is attributable to the first respondent and not the petitioner authorities. She apparently was negligent and careless while joining B.Ed. Course without even verifying the genuineness and authenticity of the so-called institution. This fact alone should have dissuaded the Tribunal from granting consequential benefits to the first respondent. We therefore hold that the first respondent is not entitled to backwages and her reinstatement in service shall be on notional basis only.  (183) PLR


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.