Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.33 seconds)
Mrs.M.Nancy Rani vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2022 cites

Society For Un-Aided P.School Of Raj vs U.O.I & Anr on 12 April, 2012

36. As per the Government orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.181, School Education Department dated 15.11.2011, as per the RTE Act, it is now mandatory for all the State Governments across the country to recruit Secondary Grade Assistant and BT Assistants only by conducting Teachers Eligibility Test. The standard of education is being maintained https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 23 of 48 W.P.No.22640 of 2016 Nation wide based on the provisions of the RTE Act and the consequential Regulations issued by the National Council for Teachers Education based on the provisions of the RTE Act. The validity of the RTE Act was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 1, wherein it is held that the Right of Children is not only to receive education but right to have the quality of education. With a view to ensure uniform standards in quality of education across the country, Teachers Eligibility Test was prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education, which is bound to be adopted by all the States across the country. Accordingly, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.181 dated 15.11.2011.
Supreme Court of India Cites 180 - Cited by 280 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

State Of Kerala, Etc vs Very Rev. Mother Provincial, Etc on 10 August, 1970

'' The decisions of this Court make it clear that in the matter of appointment of the Principal, the management of a minority educational institution has a choice. It has been held that one of the incidents of the right to administer a minority educational institution is the selection of the Principal. Any rules which take away this right of the management have been held to be interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by the management and the third respondent are qualified and eligible for appointment as Principal according to rules. The question is whether the management is not entitled to select a person of their choice. The decisions of this Court including the decision in State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, and Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, make it clear that this right of the minority educational institution cannot be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 39 of 48 W.P.No.22640 of 2016 taken away by any rules or regulations or by any enactment made by the State. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in holding otherwise. The State has undoubtedly the power to regulate the affairs of the minority educational institutions also in the interest of discipline and excellence. But in that process, the aforesaid right of the management cannot be taken away, even if the Government is giving hundred per cent grant.''
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 186 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1974

'' The decisions of this Court make it clear that in the matter of appointment of the Principal, the management of a minority educational institution has a choice. It has been held that one of the incidents of the right to administer a minority educational institution is the selection of the Principal. Any rules which take away this right of the management have been held to be interfering with the right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution. In this case, both Julius Prasad selected by the management and the third respondent are qualified and eligible for appointment as Principal according to rules. The question is whether the management is not entitled to select a person of their choice. The decisions of this Court including the decision in State of Kerala v. Very Rev. Mother Provincial, and Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of Gujarat, make it clear that this right of the minority educational institution cannot be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 39 of 48 W.P.No.22640 of 2016 taken away by any rules or regulations or by any enactment made by the State. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court was not right in holding otherwise. The State has undoubtedly the power to regulate the affairs of the minority educational institutions also in the interest of discipline and excellence. But in that process, the aforesaid right of the management cannot be taken away, even if the Government is giving hundred per cent grant.''
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 397 - A N Ray - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next