Tag: #CBSE

-Report by Harsh Singh Rajput

In the case of Annanya Yaduvanshi(Minor) vs Central Board Of Secondary Education & Others, the father (Rajendra Prasad) of the minor (Annanya Yaduvanshi) filed a petition, claiming compensatory time for Writing. As her daughter is suffering from hearing impairment and according to the guidelines of CBSE, she is entitled to such compensation, which CBSE itself fails to provide her.

FACTS:

In this case, Ananya Yaduvanshi is a Minor who was pursuing her class 12 from CBSE Board. She is diagnosed with Sensorineural Hearing Loss. She finds it difficult to complete her exam within the given time due to 77% hearing impairment in both ears. That’s why her father Rajendra Prasad sent an application to CBSE Board through her school regarding extra time to be given to her to write her exam. But that application got rejected by the CBSE Board by issuing a letter on 02-03-2023. Then her father as natural guardian on behalf of her daughter (who was a minor according to law) filed a petition W.P.(C) 2881/2023 and CM APPL.11182/2023 against the CBSE Board.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTION:

The father of Ananya (Minor) filed the petition W.P.(C) 2881/2023 and CM APPL. 11182/2023 to dissolvethe letter dated 02-03-2023 to grant the minor necessary compensatory time to write her class 12th exam for the academic session of 2022-23. And her daughter was also suffering from Sensorineural Hearing loss i.e 77% of hearing impairment in both ears as per the rights of a Person With Disability Act, 2016.

As clearly stated in this act, ‘Responsibility has been cast upon the appropriate governments to take effective measures to ensure that the persons with disabilities enjoy their rights equally with others’. That’s why her father filed a petition against the letter issued by the CBSE, which was rejecting thePlaintiff’s application to let her daughter have some extra time while writing in the examination.

Learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff said that as per the guidelines of CBSE dated 12-04-2019, Plaintiff(minor) should be given some extra time for writing inexamination and her father has also given anapplication regarding her impairment to the principalof the respondent of No. 3 school.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

At first, CBSE itself rejected the application of theminor for granting compensatory time by issuing a letter dated 02-03-2023. It stated that the reason for the rejection of Plaintiff’s application was that the application was not updated by their school on time. And as the application is due by its date it cannot be considered by the respondents.

Learned Counsel for Respondent Mr. Atul Kumar saidthat the impugned letter dated 02-03-2023 was given on basis of technical grounds to Plaintiff for therejection of their application.

JUDGEMENT:

The Delhi High Court said that CBSE by following its guidelines and circulars should accept the request of Plaintiff to provide extra time for writing in the examination. Further that, technical issues in the delay of application before CBSE should not be considered as important in the petitioner’s case, and the Court decided the date for the next exam of the Plaintiff is 11-03-2023 and before that CBSE has to decide the representation of the petitioner.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3JoC0ng

-Report by Riddhi Dubey

Delhi High Court on 3rd June 2021 quashed the Writ of student which claims a clause of CBSE Examination bye-laws to be unconditional.

Petitioner’s Contention

A Petitioner who is a minor child files a writ petition through her father. Her petition states that there has been an error in the recording of her parent’s name and which one of the bye-laws of the CBSE Examination doesn’t allow so. She mentions that her parent’s names have been recorded incorrectly as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav instead of Hari Singh and Mamta. In her birth certificate, their name has been recorded the as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav. It was stated in the petition if she is not been allowed to correct this error then it will lead to the violation of the fundamental right to education and she will also not be allowed for higher education. In the appeal, the constitutionality of the bye-law has been challenged by the petitioner.

Respondent’s Contention

Respondent is contented by the counsel that C.B.S.E. is an autonomous and independent body and so will not be compliant to the writ jurisdiction. As CBSE is an autonomous society that is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The counsel of Respondent has also mentioned that the C.B.S.E is not entitled with either the power or resources to verify the details of every candidate independently and they have to rely upon the records which are given to them by the schools. It should that there has been an error on behalf of the parents.

Judgment

In the judgment court, Justice Manmohan held that the parents of the petitioner consciously and consequently choose to fill in their names as Hari Singh Yadav and Mamta Yadav and Mamta Yadav in the school records. And the petition cannot deal with the challenge of the constitutionality of the bye-laws as petitioners are the ones who are at fault as they have repeated this mistake on many occasions. It held that the change of names shouldn’t be permitted as they chose to fill those names on their wish and account. The court also stated that the grounds of challenging the constitutionality are increasing nowadays even though the Petitioner is a default themselves. So the court quashed the following Writ Petition by saying that the petitioner’s parents are at fault.

What were the issues in the above case?

• Whether the Writ can be issued against CBSE?
• Whether the current petition can challenge the constitutional validity?

When can constitutionality be challenged?

The constitutional validity of any Act can be challenged only on two grounds viz

• Lack of legislative competence
• Violation of any of the fundamental rights

Explain Article 226

• Article 226, empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, including the government (in appropriate cases), directions, orders, or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari, or any of them.