#education Archives - Prime Legal

21 Feb

The NIOS’s 18-month D.El.Ed. Diploma programme in elementary education is not equivalent to a two-year regular diploma: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #diploma, #education, #MHRD, #SupremeCourt, #teacher

Case title: Jaiveer Singh and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Case no.: SLP (C) No. 23943 of 2022

Decided on: 28.11.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Chief Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Prasanth Kumar Mishra.

Hon’ble Justices stated that “we find that the High Court erred in holding that 18 months Diploma conducted by NIOS through ODL mode is equivalent to the 2 years regular Diploma, particularly so, when there was no material placed on record to even remotely hold that such a qualification was recommended by the Expert Body NCTE. On the contrary, the communication dated 6th September 2019 of NCTE, the directives of MHRD so also the recognition order dated 22nd September 2017 clearly go on to show that the 18 months Diploma was provided as a one-time window to the in-service teachers to acquire the minimum qualifications between the 2017 Amendment Act and the outer limit of 1st April 2019. In our considered view, the High Court has totally erred in holding that the 2 years Diploma is equivalent to 18 months Diploma.”

BRIEF FACTS:

These appeals challenge the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in a bunch of writ petitions which were filed challenging the order issued by the Secretary, Department of Elementary Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The High Court held that the 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education conducted through the Open and Distance Learning mode in elementary education by the National Institute of Open Schooling is a valid Diploma for applying against the regular posts of Assistant Teachers in the State of Uttarakhand. The High Court therefore directed the State to consider the candidatures of the petitioners therein for the said post on the basis of the applications made by them pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Uttarakhand.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After considering the arguments made by the counsel, the Supreme Court stated, It is evident that the law is trite in that the Government cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative instructions; however, if the rules are silent on a particular issue, it can fill in the blanks, supplement the rules, and issue instructions that are not at odds with the rules already framed. It is a well-established legal principle that an authority cannot issue orders/office memorandums/executive instructions that contradict statutory rules. However, instructions may only be issued to supplement, not replace, the statutory rules.

The Court also stated that there is no doubt that NCTE, as an expert body, has the authority to prescribe minimum qualifications, which it has done in the current case by issuing notifications. It also stated that the recognition order only allows in-service teachers to complete their courses before April 1, 2019. As a result, the supreme court granted the appeals and reversed the High Court’s decision.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

15 Feb

Delays in submitting documents proving his educational qualifications should not make him ineligible for selection for a post: Supreme court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #education, #law, #Police, #postings, #qualifications, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Shaila Tanaji Patil vs Maharashtra Public Service Commission,

Case no.: Writ Petition No.15613 Of 2022

Decided on: 14.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice A. S. Chandurkar, Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Jain

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The petitioner seeks to challenge an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s filed by holding that the petitioner did not file the ‘Sports Verification Certificate’ with the respondents along with the application and thus cannot be considered for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

PETITIONERS CONTENTION:

The petitioner claimed that she was already selected as a Police Constable under the ‘Sports Category’ based on the Certificate issued by the Association of Indian Universities. This is the certificate she had verified for the position of Police Sub-Inspector, and the respondents themselves verified it. The certificate was presented at the time of the interview.

The petitioner claimed that she was already in possession of the Certificate when she applied for the position of Police Sub-Inspector, and that she was appointed as a Police Constable on the basis of this certificate prior to the examination. The petitioner contended that on a true and proper construction of the advertisement’s Clauses, it cannot be said that she did not comply with the Clauses relating to the holding of the certificate at the time of making the application.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

The respondents argued that they agreed with the Tribunal’s decision and further stated that the petition should be denied because the “Sports Verification Certificate” was not submitted with the application, indicating that the advertisement’s requirements were not met.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner’s OA. And, admittedly, the petitioner had already obtained the sports certificate, which was also on record with the respondents. Furthermore, the verification certificate for the sports certificate obtained was filed and submitted at the time of the interview, in accordance with the advertisement’s clauses. Thus, even on this point, the Tribunal and the respondents were not justified in rejecting the petitioner for the position of Police Sub-Inspector.

The court relied on the case of Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission, which held that if a candidate is otherwise found to be meritorious and there is a delay in filing documents in support of his educational qualification that were filed before the date of selection, such a candidate should not be considered ineligible when deciding on selection for the post.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

27 Dec

Transfer of professors within branches of same institutions should be of equivalent posts : Bombay HC on the transfer of Assistant professors to schools.

Prime Legal

Blog #bombayhc, #education, #law, #legalnews, #transfer

TITLE : Dhananjay Bhagwandas Devi V State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice A.S Chandurkar and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwala

DATE : 22^nd December, 2023

CITATION : WP No. 4920 of 2023

FACTS

The petitioners were appointed as Associate professors at the college of engineering and polytechnic in a society. The petitioners were transferred from Karnaveer Bhaurao Patil college of engineering to Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Polythenic varye. The petitioners are aggrieved on the said transfer as they were assistant professors in the first institution which was affiliated to All India Council of Technical Education whereas the second institution is recognized as a school under Section 2(24) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School Regulation Act,1977. During the pendency of the trial, both the petitioners were suspended and the same is being challenged along with the deduction of post. It was argued by the petitioners that there was no alternative remedy to file for grievances and no grievance committee was constituted as required by section 86 of the Dr, Babasahed Ambedkar Technological University Act, 2014 as the engineering college is affiliated with the same institute.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 86 of the the Dr, Babasahed Ambedkar Technological University Act, 2014

Other committees.– Every authority of the University shall have the power to appoint committees including grievance committee for dealing with any matter within its purview, and such committees may include person, other than members of the authority itself, not connected with the University :

Provided that, the Board of Studies and other authorities shall not appoint persons to such committees who are not members of the authority appointing the committee, except with the previous approval of the Vice- Chancellor.

ISSUES

Whether the petitioners had alternative remedy?
Whether the transfer of posts valid?
Whether the suspension order in accordance with law?

JUDGEMENT

The court observed that a grievance cell was constituted under a notification passed. The court further observed that a grievance cell is not equivalent to grievance committee under Section 86 of the Act of 2014. The court found sufficient reason to believe that the petitioners have no other alternate remedy available.

The polytechnic college is not affiliated with the act of 2014 but instead the Act of 1977 under the category of school, whereas on the other hand the engineering college is affiliated with the 2014 Act and is a recognized university. The court observed that the polytechnic college did not have the post of assistant professor since it is still technically a school. Therefore the court held that the transfer was not in accordance with law as there was no equivalent transfer of posts.

On the issue of the suspension order, the court held that a suspension on the basis of disciplinary grounds should not be more than 3 months. The suspension was done on May 2023. Since more than 5 months have passed out, the court held that the suspension on the ground for enquiry basis was right but the mere fact of holding suspension for an indefinite period is unwarranted.

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

24 Oct

Allahabad High Court Took The Initiative Too Safeguard The Future Of Kids In Child Care Institutions

Prime Legal

Uncategorized #Child care, #education, #Fundamental Rights, #Public Policy

Title: In Re: (Suo Moto) v/s State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation: PIL No. 2495 of 2023

Decided on: 19.10.2023

Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker, Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot

Introduction:

Inspection of various child care institutions throughout the State of U.P. was conducted by Hon’ble Justice Ajay Bhanot, revealed various shortcomings and deficiencies in the running of the institution which directly implicate the fundamental rights of children of the said homes under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The shortcomings and deficiencies in running of the institution affects the Fundamental Right of children, the fundamental right to live with liberty under article 21 of the constitution is being violated due to shortcomings in the running of these child care institutions. Some of the shortcomings noticed are as follow:

The children are living in cramped conditions with little or no access to sunlight, fresh air, playgrounds or open spaces. The living conditions will impede a holistic growth of the children.
The staff in such homes is the most critical part of the functioning. In many cases the homes are not being headed by duly appointed supervisors and other staff members are not adequately trained
The budget allocation for the food items/diet, and other necessities of live has not been revised in many years
The educational facilities also need to be upgraded and diligently monitored.
Emotional development and physical activities of the children in these homes need special attention since they live in circumstances very different from other children.
The girl child has to be taken special care of and lady counsellors should appointed

Judgement and Analysis:

The living condition in these child care institutes are worst than prison cells, Various directions have been issued by the Juvenile Justice And POCSO Committee of this Court requesting the State Government to forthwith initiate measures to shift the homes where children live in overcrowded conditions to more spacious places with adequate facilities.

The State Government was directed to undertake an exercise for admission of the children in schools of repute in the vicinity of the homes. children of the homes shall be given the benefit of reservation in schools of repute in the Right to Education Act. Court also added State Government may consider waiving the requirement of income certificate of families for the purpose of grant of such benefit.

The Principal Secretary was directed to disclose the number of observation homes of different categories whether run by the Government or private agencies in the State of U.P. and with the aid of the Government on the next date and the number of children of different age groups residing in such institution.

Written By: Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgment

2 Aug

IBC | It Is Not Arbitrary To Send A Demand Notice To A Personal Guarantor In Line With Rule 7(1)

Prime Legal

Blog #arbitration, #delhi, #delhicourt, #education, #HighCourt, #IBC

Title: Vineet Saraf v. Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd.
Decided on: 21st July, 2023

+ W.P. (C) 3293 of 2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Purushaindra Kumar Yadav

Introduction

The case of Vineet Saraf v. Rural Electrification Corpn. Ltd. involves a writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge an impugned demand notice issued by the respondent under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Application to Deciding Authority for Insolvency Resolution Procedure for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors Rules, 2019. The petitioner, acting as a personal surety for a debt backed by a corporate guarantee, initiated a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against FACOR Power Ltd. The resolution process resulted in a Resolution Plan approved by NCLT, Cuttack, and upheld by NCLAT and the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that the respondent had promised to transfer the entire debt and related rights to FACOR Power Ltd. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the financial creditors retained the right to pursue securities, citing continuous personal guarantees and third-party collateral provided as security for the debt. The respondent issued a demand notice based on the petitioner’s personal guarantee, which was contested by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, a personal guarantor, challenged the respondent’s demand notice under the 2019 Rules, arguing that the respondent had assigned all obligations to FACOR Power Ltd. without excluding personal guarantees. The petitioner claimed that this assignment hindered the use of his guarantee. The Court emphasized the distinction between an unconditional release and a commitment not to sue, stating that a reserve clause in a deed that releases the primary borrower protects the creditor’s right to pursue action against the guarantor.

Analysis of Court Order

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Yadav of the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge Bench rejected the petitioner’s argument that the guarantor had a legal right to be heard at a later stage. The Court opined that granting the petition would violate the procedural requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 and deprive the respondent of the opportunity to present their case before the relevant NCLT. The Court set down important guidelines for consideration but left the decision on the case’s merits to NCLT.

Held

The Delhi High Court denied the writ petition and refused to issue a writ of prohibition, emphasizing that it was not appropriate to create private commercial law to demonstrate the respondent’s lack of jurisdiction. The Court’s decision reiterated that the petitioner’s argument of having the right to be heard at a later stage was insufficient to proceed with the petition. The issue was left to NCLT’s determination based on the merits of the case.

Written by- Ankit Kaushik

Click here to view judgement

1 2