Laws laid down by supreme court

LAW LAID DOWN ON EDUCATION


                                     LAW LAID DOWN ON EDUCATION

                                                            PART -A

 1. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD V SURESH PRASAD SINHA 2009CTJ 1057 SC (CP)

1.      “We are clearly of the view that the Board (examination board) is not a ‘service provider’ and a student who takes an examination is not a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaint under the Act (Consumer Protection Act) will not be maintainable against the board,” said a bench comprising Justice R V Raveendran and Justice Markandey Katju

2.      “The function of the board is to conduct school examinations. This statutory function involves holding periodical examinations, evaluating the answer scripts, declaring the results and issuing certificates. The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative.

3.      “When the examination board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its ‘services’ to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the board, hires or avails of any service from the board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the board is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-à-vis other examinees.”

4.       “The process is not, therefore, availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation the examination,”

 

UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY V/S MUMBAI GRAM PANCHAYAT REPORTED IN  [1994]CPJ 146 [NC] AND IN CHAORMAN BOARD OF EXAMINATION V/S MOHIDEEN ABDUL KADAR [1997] CPJ 49 [NC]

 “University or the Board in conducting public examination ,evaluating papers ,announcing results etc. are not the service providers by taking consideration.”

 

 REGIONAL OFFICER CBSE V/S SHEENA PETHAMBRAN[2003]OF SCC 719 AT PAGE 725 SC

    ‘This court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to persue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared ,the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically.’

 

BHUPESH KHURANA &OTHERS V VISHWA BUDHA PARISHAD &OTHERS 2009CTJ 733 CP NO 1135 OF 2001

 “College and Hospital that imparting education by an educational institute falls within the ambit of service as defined in the consumer protection act.

        !)Imparting education by an institute for consideration  falls within the ambit of services and that the students are consumers of that services .

         !!)That it was total misrepresentation by  Budhist Mission Dental College and Hospital through  advertisement giving  clear impression that the institute had its affiliation with Magadh University ,Bodh Gaya and was recognized by dental council of India .while it was not true ,it  tentamounts to unfair trade practice

CENTRLAL BOARD OF SEC.EDUCATION & ... V/S  ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS. ON 9 AUGUST, 2011,AUTHOR: R.V.RAVEENDRAN ,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ,CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011

 Issue : Inspection and re-evaluation of answer-books Under RTI Act

CBSE rejected the said request by letter dated 12.7.2008.

The reasons for rejection were:

 Crux of the law laid down in the judgement

 

 CBSE Examination Bye-laws

 

 No.61 . Verification of marks obtained by a Candidate in a subject (i) A candidate who has appeared at an examination conducted by the Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answer's have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book and to the award list and whether the supplementary  answer book(s) attached with the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book(s) shall be done.

(ii) Such an application must be made by the candidate within 21 days from the date of the declaration of result for Main Examination and 15 days for Compartment Examination.

(iii) All such applications must be accompanied by payment of fee as prescribed by the Board from time to time.

(iv) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to, revaluation of his/her answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer book(s) or other documents.

xxxx

(vi) In no case the verification of marks shall be done in the presence of the candidate or anyone else on his/her behalf, nor will the answer books be shown to him/her or his/her representative.

(vii) Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman. (viii) The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his/her answer book. xxxx

62. Maintenance of Answer Books

The answer books shall be maintained for a period of three months and shall thereafter be disposed of in the manner as decided by the Chairman from time to time.

Bye-law 61(4), which provided that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to re-evaluation of answer books or disclosure/inspection of answer books

Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh B. Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27],

Parmod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar PAC [2004 (6) SCC 714]

, Board of Secondary Education vs. Pavan Ranjan P [2004 (13) SCC 383],

Board of Secondary Education vs. S [2007 (1) SCC 603] and

 Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. I Dass [2007 (8) SCC 242]; and

 (iv) holding that the examinee had a right to inspect his answer book under section 3 of the RTI Act and the examining bodies like CBSE were not exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration

(i)                 Whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or taking certified copies thereof?

(ii)               (ii) Whether the decisions of this court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education [1984 (4) SCC 27] and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof?

(iii)             (iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under section 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act?

(iv)             (iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards?

Relevant Legal Provisions

"The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration"

"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."

Conclusion:In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which `information' should be furnished

 

 

 Jai Jai Kumar Mittal    Vs.Brilliant Tutorials  ORIGINAL  PETITION NO. 51 OF 1996   NC                                                …

    "it is apparent that there is deficiency in service by the Opposite Party in supply of study material.  However, the question is whether these errors can be held to be of such importance that it would result in failure of the Complainant in succeeding Civil Services Examination.  Some of the errors were noted by the Complainant.   Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that it had adversely affected the Complainant in succeeding the Civil Services Examination. We appreciate the zeal of the Complainant in highlighting the errors. Considering the overall facts and errors pointed out by the Complainant, we are of the opinion that the claim made by the Complainant is exaggerated.   Considering   the   dispute   involved   and   deficiency       in  service,  we   direct   the   Opposite   Party   to    pay   to   the  Complainant   Rs.25,000/-   towards   compensation,   to   refund   the amount   of   Rs.4,800/-   paid   to   the  Opposite Party by way of fees, and also pay  Rs.5,000/- towards costs. The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly".

 

                                                             PART--B

 

LAW ON INTERIM ORDERS AGAINST UNIVERSITIES

 

In Regional Officer CBSE V/s Sheena Pethambaran(2003) of SCC 719 at page 725 High Courts had given interim orders against which Supreme Court held;

 “This court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies  had to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is  ultimately  pleaded that since the course was over  or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered  sympathetically.”

  In the above referred cases,

Revision petition No.1121 of 2005-Ruchika jain V BDS College Faridabad   AND     Revision petition No.1127  of 2005  National  Commission Justice  M.B.Shah warns the Consumer Fora as hereunder

  “If  High Court is not permitted to pass such orders, it is to be held ;without hesitation or reservation  that Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to pass such orders.We hereby direct that in future no such interim order permitting the students either to pursue the study or ;to appear in the examination, shall be passed by the Consumer For a.  That is not the function of the Consumer Fora and hence granting of such interim orders could amount to misconduct:”

              Hence the three Revision petitions before the National Commission and finaly commission held that consumer foras cannot issue interim order on  such subject which are statutory duties of the university and if such orders are passed , shall be considered misconduct.

Parul Midha in Revision Petition No.1933-34 of 2005       

                         District forum directed the university to give admission to the complainant in regular B.Ed. course on 14.10.2003 while deciding complaint No.466/03 before disctrict consumer forum Rohtak.  State Commission also confirmed the order on 6.4.2005.  District forum again issued interim order dated 16.7.2004 directing petitioner to declare result and  issue provisional migration certificate.  National Commission set aside all the interim orders passed  by the lower forum and commission.

 

                                                                        -

                                                            PART--C

CENTRLAL BOARD OF SEC.EDUCATION & ... V/S  ADITYA BANDOPADHYAY & ORS. ON 9 AUGUST, 2011 –

 

                                                RTI  ISSUE

 

Author: R.V.Raveendran

Supreme Court of India

civil appelalte jurisdiction

civil appeal no.6454 of 2011

Crux of the law laid down in the judgement

   Issue : Inspection and re-evaluation of answer-books Under RTI Act

CBSE rejected the said request by letter dated 12.7.2008.

The reasons for rejection were:

 

 CBSE Examination Bye-laws

 No.61 . Verification of marks obtained by a Candidate in a subject (i) A candidate who has appeared at an examination conducted by the Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answer's have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book and to the award list and whether the supplementary  answer book(s) attached with the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book(s) shall be done.

(ii) Such an application must be made by the candidate within 21 days from the date of the declaration of result for Main Examination and 15 days for Compartment Examination.

(iii) All such applications must be accompanied by payment of fee as prescribed by the Board from time to time.

(iv) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to, revaluation of his/her answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer book(s) or other documents.

xxxx

(vi) In no case the verification of marks shall be done in the presence of the candidate or anyone else on his/her behalf, nor will the answer books be shown to him/her or his/her representative.

(vii) Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman. (viii) The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his/her answer book. xxxx

62. Maintenance of Answer Books

The answer books shall be maintained for a period of three months and shall thereafter be disposed of in the manner as decided by the Chairman from time to time.

Bye-law 61(4), which provided that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to re-evaluation of answer books or disclosure/inspection of answer books

Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education vs. Paritosh B. Sheth [1984 (4) SCC 27], Parmod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar PAC [2004 (6) SCC 714], Board of Secondary Education vs. Pavan Ranjan P [2004 (13) SCC 383], Board of Secondary Education vs. S [2007 (1) SCC 603] and Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. I Dass [2007 (8) SCC 242]; and (iv) holding that the examinee had a right to inspect his answer book under section 3 of the RTI Act and the examining bodies like CBSE were not exempted from disclosure of information under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

On the contentions urged, the following questions arise for our consideration

(i) Whether an examinee's right to information under the RTI Act includes a right to inspect his evaluated answer books in a public examination or taking certified copies thereof?

(ii) Whether the decisions of this court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education [1984 (4) SCC 27] and other cases referred to above, in any way affect or interfere with the right of an examinee seeking inspection of his answer books or seeking certified copies thereof?

(iii) Whether an examining body holds the evaluated answer books in a fiduciary relationship and consequently has no obligation to give inspection of the evaluated answer books under section 8 (1)(e) of RTI Act?

(iv) If the examinee is entitled to inspection of the evaluated answer books or seek certified copies thereof, whether such right is subject to any limitations, conditions or safeguards?

RELEVANT  LEGAL PROVISIONS

THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and

eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration

The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead t

      &nbs

Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.

Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,