<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (8) TMI 1169 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306065</link>
    <description>Admission to a recognised school could not be refused merely because a transfer certificate was pending verification; the proper course was provisional admission while verification proceeded. Rule 139 was treated as facilitating confirmation of the last class attended, not as defeating the right to education. The assessment under Rule 141(2) was also not a prohibited screening procedure, because it was meant to gauge a child&#039;s learning level and suitable class placement rather than to prefer one child over another. A child without prior recognised schooling was therefore not mechanically confined to the age-corresponding class; the school could place the child in an appropriate class after assessment, with special training remaining available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2023 17:41:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=701010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 1169 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306065</link>
      <description>Admission to a recognised school could not be refused merely because a transfer certificate was pending verification; the proper course was provisional admission while verification proceeded. Rule 139 was treated as facilitating confirmation of the last class attended, not as defeating the right to education. The assessment under Rule 141(2) was also not a prohibited screening procedure, because it was meant to gauge a child&#039;s learning level and suitable class placement rather than to prefer one child over another. A child without prior recognised schooling was therefore not mechanically confined to the age-corresponding class; the school could place the child in an appropriate class after assessment, with special training remaining available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>