Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 169 (2.83 seconds)
Documents citing Avinash Mehrotra vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 April, 2009

The Director Of Matriculation Schools vs Kaviyan School on 18 August, 2015

14.As has been pointed by Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant, before grant of recognition, it is incumbent on the educational authorities to indicate what are all the requirements the law requires and the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra, cited supra, have been complied with by the schools, while seeking recognition and what are the requirements/directions yet to be complied with by the schools. We expect the educational authorities that before granting recognition, they should be very clear whether all the requirements of law/defects pointed out have been complied with by the schools who seek approval and thereupon take a decision, in either way. We, therefore, modify the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the application of the respondent school for recognition should be considered in the parameters of the various guidelines issued by the Government and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 398 and after getting clarification from the concerned Panchayat or from the Town and Country Planning Authorities, whether building plan approval has been granted to the respondent school, as required under law. Therefore, the respondent school be informed about the status, so that they can workout their remedy. For compliance, the appellant is directed to clarify all these issues to the respondent school, by a letter, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the respondent school shall comply the same within four weeks thereafter. On receipt of the reply, the appellant shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Sri Chaitanya Junior Kalasala vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2021

44. We also do not find any merit in the plea taken by the petitioners that the safety norms engrafted in the NBC, 2016 would not be applicable to schools that were in existence prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Mehrotra (supra). The petitioners were all along aware of the mandatory requirement of obtaining a fire NOC and had on their own given an undertaking to furnish one to the authorities. When the petitioners had voluntarily given an undertaking to the respondent No.2/TSBIE that if they do not obtain a fire NOC in respect of the building from where the junior college was operating, they would shift the students to a fire compliant building, they must be firmly held to the said undertaking. They cannot be permitted to renege by offering frivolous excuses to wriggle out of the stipulations of law. In any event, the petitioners were duly accommodated by the respondent No.2/TSBIE. While rejecting their application for affiliation and ordering closure of the colleges, respondent No.2/TSBIE had directed the petitioners to shift the students to another suitable building for the next academic year so as not to jeopardise the career of the students studying in the said colleges.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

Sri Kalyana Chakravarti Memorial ... vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2021

44. We also do not find any merit in the plea taken by the petitioners that the safety norms engrafted in the NBC, 2016 would not be applicable to schools that were in existence prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Mehrotra (supra). The petitioners were all along aware of the mandatory requirement of obtaining a fire NOC and had on their own given an undertaking to furnish one to the authorities. When the petitioners had voluntarily given an undertaking to the respondent No.2/TSBIE that if they do not obtain a fire NOC in respect of the building from where the junior college was operating, they would shift the students to a fire compliant building, they must be firmly held to the said undertaking. They cannot be permitted to renege by offering frivolous excuses to wriggle out of the stipulations of law. In any event, the petitioners were duly accommodated by the respondent No.2/TSBIE. While rejecting their application for affiliation and ordering closure of the colleges, respondent No.2/TSBIE had directed the petitioners to shift the students to another suitable building for the next academic year so as not to jeopardise the career of the students studying in the said colleges.
Telangana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

K.Shyam Sunder vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 July, 2011

The learned senior counsel referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avinash Mehrotra vs. Union of India, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 398 and P.A.Inamdar vs. State of Maharastra, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 637 on the aspect of importance of education. The learned senior counsel submitted that as per the report submitted by the Committee at page 31, there are 1,20,00,000 students in the State, of which 1,07,18,711 students are in State Board schools; 27,21,128 students in Matriculation schools; 54,103 students in Anglo-Indian Schools and 9,985 in Oriental Schools. All that the Uniform System of Education seeks to achieve is to make approximately 3 lakhs students, who are under different Boards, adopt the same Board as studied by over one crore students in the State. It is pointed out that for Standards XI and XII, it is uniform syllabus and textbooks for all the four Boards. The learned senior counsel placed reliance on the order of the Supreme Court dated 14.06.2011 and the observations contained therein and submitted that the Government order in G.O. No.101, dated 15.06.2011 is a case of contempt of the order of the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court did not authorize the Committee to review the quality of syllabus and textbooks. Learned senior counsel raised serious objections regarding the Members of the Committee, in particular, the academicians.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Tusar Pravinbhai Sojitra vs Addl. Chief Secretary on 26 February, 2021

30) Whereas to achieve the objective set forth in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and in compliance of the direction issued by the Apex Court in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 483 of 2004 titled as Avinash Mehrotra v/s Union of India & others, the Haryana State Government has notified a State Policy on the "Safety Measures in Government and Private Aided & Un-aided Schools" situate in the State of Haryana.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Mohammed Suhel M Tirmizi vs State Of Gujarat on 26 February, 2021

30) Whereas to achieve the objective set forth in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and in compliance of the direction issued by the Apex Court in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 483 of 2004 titled as Avinash Mehrotra v/s Union of India & others, the Haryana State Government has notified a State Policy on the "Safety Measures in Government and Private Aided & Un-aided Schools" situate in the State of Haryana.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Amit Manilal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat on 26 February, 2021

30) Whereas to achieve the objective set forth in the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and in compliance of the direction issued by the Apex Court in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 483 of 2004 titled as Avinash Mehrotra v/s Union of India & others, the Haryana State Government has notified a State Policy on the "Safety Measures in Government and Private Aided & Un-aided Schools" situate in the State of Haryana.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next