Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011
17. The above procedure appears to be very obnoxious and seems to serve as a deterrent for students seeking re-valuation. While I do not find fault with the prescription of two steps, one for viewing the answer book in the presence of the faculty member and another for re-valuation, I am unable to appreciate the cost involved. There is no fair deal in prescribing Rs.5,000/- for viewing and Rs.10,000/- for re-valuation. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay [(2011) 8 SCC 497], the candidates are entitled even to seek a xerox copy of their answer books under the Right to Information Act. Therefore, to prescribe that the candidate should pay Rs.5,000/- for viewing and thereafter, pay Rs.10,000/- for re-valuation, is nothing but commercial exploitation.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Visweswaraiah Technological Univ.& ... vs Krishnendu Halder & Ors on 18 February, 2011
In Visveswaraiah Technological University v. Krishnendu Halder [AIR 2011 SC 1429], the Supreme Court held that every individual university is entitled to fix higher academic standards, over and above the minimum standards fixed by Regulatory Bodies, such as AICTE or the Medical Council of India. All that is forbidden is that the standards fixed by the Regulatory Bodies cannot be diluted by the Universities, by fixing lower academic standards. Hence, the fact that the respondent-University has provided a Break System, not contemplated by the Rules of Legal Education framed by the Bar Council of India, cannot be a ground to hold that the Break System was unlawful.
Section 12 in The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
G. V Rathore vs The Managing Director 30 Fa/492/2018 ... on 15 July, 2019
6. But, unfortunately for the petitioners, the Break System prescribed by the respondent-University was already upheld by me in two other writ petitions, one in W.P.No.31718 of 2013 dated 10.9.2014 [J.Prajoy v. Bar Council of India] and another in W.P.No.3444 of 2014 dated 19.9.2014 [V.G.Arun v. Bar Council of India]. The purpose of the Break System is to ensure that it is only those who become qualified to acquire a basic Degree in Arts/Science/Commerce, can be permitted to move over to the 4th year of the Course.
1