TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Order Upheld for Student Admissions Beyond Capacity; Education Department Criticized</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim order directing the accommodation and admission of students admitted beyond sanctioned strength. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality and propriety of the High Court's interim order.2. Consent and compliance with the High Court's order.3. Admission of students beyond the sanctioned strength.4. Conduct and responsibility of the Education Department.5. Accommodation and education of the admitted students.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Propriety of the High Court's Interim Order:The central issue in the appeal was whether the High Court was justified in directing the Education Officer to ensure that 112 students admitted by a Christian minority institution to the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) course for the academic year 1991-92 against the sanctioned strength of 80 should be accommodated and admitted in proper colleges. The Supreme Court noted that the issue of propriety was exaggerated by the State of Maharashtra in its attempt to get the interim order stayed. The Court observed that the appellant misled the Supreme Court by creating a misleading impression to serve its own purpose, which was deemed irresponsible.2. Consent and Compliance with the High Court's Order:The High Court's order dated 30-9-1993 was claimed to be a consent order by the Education Department. However, the appellant attempted to assail this observation by asserting that no such consent was given by the concerned officer. The Supreme Court emphasized that factual recitals in a judgment are presumed correct unless rebutted, and the appellant failed to provide sufficient rebuttal. The Court found that the appellant's vague assertions did not constitute a proper rebuttal.3. Admission of Students Beyond the Sanctioned Strength:The institution admitted 112 students against the sanctioned strength of 80, claiming immunity from the Education Department's control. The Education Officer did not approve these admissions and issued a notice canceling them. The High Court's interim order directed the Education Officer to accommodate these students, which was challenged by the State. The Supreme Court noted that interim orders are granted to protect the petitioner's interest until final adjudication. However, the order in question was passed after the dispute between the Management and the Department had been decided, making the earlier reasons for rejecting interim relief irrelevant.4. Conduct and Responsibility of the Education Department:The Supreme Court criticized the Education Department for not acting responsibly and misleading the Court. The Department failed to inform the Court that Writ Petition No. 1703 of 1990 had been decided, which was crucial information. The Court expressed its disapproval of the Department's conduct, noting that it played with the students' careers and concealed important information.5. Accommodation and Education of the Admitted Students:The Supreme Court directed the Management to produce the list of admissions for scrutiny by the Education Officer. The Education Officer was instructed to grant admission to 50% of the sanctioned strength from the Christian community and the remaining 50% from other communities based on merit. For the extra 31 students, the Court directed the Education Officer to request the Government to raise the sanctioned strength for one year or accommodate them in other colleges. The Court emphasized that if facilities were available, all 80 students should be allowed to study in the same college, but if not, they should be distributed among other colleges.Conclusion:The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with specific directions to ensure the proper accommodation and education of the students. The Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs on the State of Maharashtra but emphasized the need for the authorities to act more responsibly in the future. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to legal and procedural propriety by both the educational institutions and the regulatory authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
