Back
1998(2) Supreme 58
Supreme Court of India
M.M. Punchhi, CJI, B.N. Kirpal and M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Central Board of Secondary Education -Petitioner
versus
Nikhil Gulati & Anr. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 18853 of 1997
(With SLPs 19513 & 19057/1997)
Decided on 13-2-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Mr. T.C. Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mr. Ajay Sharma and Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. S.K. Jain and Mr. A.P. Dhamija, Advocates.
Order
Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted, under court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process’ more so when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. And yet it is repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders, for it puts the ‘Rule of Law’ to a mockery, and promotes rather the ‘Rule of Man’.
2. All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students herein, Therefore, we decline to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. The S.L.Ps. are, accordingly, dismissed.
SLPs dismissed.
*********
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, 1998(2) Supreme 58 : AIR 1998 SC 1205 : (1998) 3 SCC 5 : 1998(1) Scale 634 : 1998(II) AD (SC) 209 : JT 1998(1) SC 718
00021
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
