Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

CBSE Bye-Laws Prevail in School Promotion Criteria, Declares Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court affirmed the supremacy of the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) Examination Bye-Laws over the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) Education Code. The decision, delivered on November 6, 2023, by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, has paved the way for a Class XI student to be promoted to Class XII despite failing Mathematics, a main subject, by substituting the marks with those obtained in Physical Education, an additional subject.

The court observed that "the decision of the matter turns on the interpretation of two provisions, viz. (i) Bye-Law 40.1, more specifically Bye-Law 40.1 clauses (iv) and (vi) of the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws; and (ii) Article 106 of the KVS Education Code." It was concluded that the CBSE bye-laws must prevail, ensuring uniformity and fairness in the academic progression criteria applied to students.

Justice Bhambhani noted, "once KVS has sought and obtained affiliation to the CBSE inter-alia for Class-XI and Class-XII, KVS cannot impose on its students pass criteria for Class-XI which are in the teeth of specific pass criteria laid down by the CBSE vide Bye-Law 40.1." This clarification has brought clarity to the applicable rules governing student promotions within the education system.

The petitioner, represented by advocates Ms. Pooja Dhar and Ms. S. Ambica, successfully argued that the respondent school was bound by the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws and was, therefore, required to adopt the 'pass criteria' prescribed therein. The court's decision underscores the binding nature of the CBSE's regulations on all affiliated institutions, including those under the KVS.

The ruling also highlighted the court's role in judicial review, especially in matters of educational policy, with the court affirming that "the bye-laws of the Board have the force of law and must be regarded as such for all legal purposes."

This decision has significant implications for educational institutions affiliated with the CBSE, reaffirming the Board's autonomous status and the enforceability of its regulations. It ensures that students' rights to fair evaluation and promotion are upheld, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: 06 November 2023

ARYAN KUMAR (MINOR) THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR VS KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Del-06-Nov-2023-Aryan-Kumar-Vs-KV-Vidalya.pdf"]

Similar News