SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(SC) 54

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.D. KOSHAL AND A.N. SEN, JJ.
Ramesh Kumar and another etc., Petitioners
Versus
The Technological Institute of Textile, Bhiwani and others, Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 5252-53, 5365, 5152 of 1980, 39 of 1981, and 6479 of 1980, D/- 26-1-1981.
WITH

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 – Education matter - Supplementary examination - Admission - Petitioners in these five petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India and Technological Institute of Textiles are agreed that all thirteen petitioners shall stand admitted to said Institute as from today and shall be allowed to take supplementary examination which is being held for the benefit of those 20 students who, according to petitioners, were admitted even though they did not so deserve on merits - Held, no substance in preliminary objections raised by Mr. Desai on behalf of Institute that petitions should be thrown out on ground of delay -Ends of justice to further direct University to regularise admission of thirteen petitioners as mentioned above and to see that they take their supplementary examination or any other examination that may be necessary so that they are, for all practical purposes, placed at par with the 23 students above mentioned and do not waste a year of their academic career - We make a further direction to Institute and that is that in future it shall admit students strictly in accordance with rules and instructions issued by University - Petitions disposed of

Judgment

KOSHAL, J. :- The petitioners in these five petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the Technological Institute of Textiles, Bhiwani are agreed that all the thirteen petitioners shall stand admitted to the said Institute as from today and shall be allowed to take the supplementary examination which is being held for the benefit of those 20 students who, according to the petitioners, were admitted even though they did not so deserve on merits. We order accordingly. We further find no substance in the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Desai on behalf of the Institute that the petitions should be thrown out on the ground of delay. The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court within about two months of the impugned admission and the gap represents a very reasonable time for the petitioners to take action at law. We may make it clear, however, that if the petitioners had delayed the institution of their petitions by, say, four months or so, we would not have entertained them by reason of delay alone, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. We consider it conducive to the ends of justice to further direct the University to regularise the admission of the thirteen petitioners as mentioned above and to see that they take their supplementary examination or any other examination that may be necessary so that they are, for all practical purposes, placed at par with the 23 students above mentioned and do not waste a year of their academic career.

3. We make a further direction to the Institute and that is that in future it shall admit students strictly in accordance with the rules and instructions issued by the University.

4. All the five petitions are disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 1200

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top