Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Supreme Court of India

Goa, Daman And Diu Board Of Secondary ... vs Kumari Hema Laad And Ors on 16 August, 1984

Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1584, 1985 SCR (1) 430, AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 1584, 1984 (4) SCC 58

Author: V. Balakrishna Eradi

Bench: V. Balakrishna Eradi, D.A. Desai

           PETITIONER:
GOA, DAMAN AND DIU BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
KUMARI HEMA LAAD AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/08/1984

BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:
 1984 AIR 1584		  1985 SCR  (1) 430
 1984 SCC  (4)	58	  1984 SCALE  (2)171


ACT:
     Goa, Daman	 and  Diu  Secondary  and  Higher  Secondary
Education  Rules,  1975-Framed	under  Goa,  Daman  and	 Diu
Secondary and  Higher Secondary	 Education Board Act-Clauses
(1) and	 (2) of	 rule 37 insofar as they prohibit inspection
and or revaluation of answer books-Validity of-Held valid.



HEADNOTE:
     On being  challenged, the	Bombay High Court, following
its earlier  decision in  Paritosh  Bhupesh  Kumarsheth	 and
other v.  Maharashtra State  Board of  Secondary and  Higher
Secondary Education,  Pune and another, AIR 1981 Bombay 895,
declared clauses  (1) and  (2) of  Rule 37 of Goa, Daman and
Diu Secondary  and Higher  Secondary Education	Rules,	1975
insofar as  they prohibit  inspection and/or  revaluation of
answer books,  as invalid.  Hence these	 appeals by  special
leave,
     Allowing the appeals.
^
     HELD: The	decision followed  by the  Bombay High Court
has been  overruled by this Court in Maharashtra State Board
of Secondary  and Higher  Secondary Education and another v.
Paritosh Bhupesh  Kumarsheth and  others [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29.
The present  case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in
the said ruling. Hence the judgment of the High Court is set
aside and  the validity	 of clauses(1) and (2) of Rule 37 is
upheld. [431F-G]
     Maharashtra  State	  Board	 of   Secondary	 and  Higher
Secondary  Education   and  another   v.  Paritosh  Bhupesh,
Kumarsheth and	others, decided	 by Supreme  Court [1985]  1
S.C.R. 29.



JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4152 to 4157 of 1982.

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd November, 1982 of the Bombay High Court, Panaji Bench, 431 (Goa), in Special Civil Application Writ Petitions Nos. 129, 110, 103, 101, 102 and 10 of 1980.

Soli J. Sorabjee, Mrs. A. K. Verma and O. C. Mathur for the Appellant.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Panaji Bench) dated 2.11.1982 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court allowed a batch of Writ Petitions filed by some students who had appeared in the XII standard examination conducted by the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and declared the provisions of clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed by the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu under Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act as ultra vires and invalid insofar as they prohibit inspection and/or revaluation of answer books. In reaching the said conclusion on the validity of the impugned rules the High Court followed its earlier Judgment in Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and others v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune and another- AIR 1981 Bombay 895-wherein Regulation 104 (3) framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education which is an identical provision prohibiting inspection and/or revaluation of answer books was declared illegal and ultra vires. The correctness of the said Judgment (AIR 1981 Bombay 895) came in for examination by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and Others. By Judgment dated 17th July 1984, this Court reversed the view taken by the Bombay High Court and upheld the validity of the impugned clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104. The present case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in the said ruling. Hence we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and upheld the validity of clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act. These appeals are allowed and the writ petitions filed in the High Court will stand dismissed. The appellant will get its costs from the respondents.

H.S.K. Appeal allowed.

432