CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATIONversusNIKHIL GULATI AND ANR.
- Citation
- 1998 INSC 92
- Decided
- 13 February 1998
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
Court orders allowing ineligible students to sit for examinations are an abuse of process and should not be treated as precedent; the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) challenged orders of the Rajasthan High Court that allowed certain students, who did not meet eligibility criteria, to appear for board or university examinations. The petitioners argued that such orders contravened the statutory eligibility requirements and amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s discretionary direction could be set aside under Article 136 of the Constitution and whether it should be treated as a precedent for future cases. The Court observed that allowing ineligible students to sit for exams is an occasional aberration that should not be endorsed, as it mocks the rule of law and promotes the rule of man. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere under Article 136 and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. The decision underscores that courts must not issue casual directions that undermine statutory eligibility norms.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court's order permitting ineligible students to sit for board/university examinations should be set aside under Article 136 of the Constitution.
- Whether such orders constitute a precedent that should be followed in future cases.
Subjects
Judgment
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION A
-
v.
NIKHIL GULA TI AND ANR.
FEBRUARY 13, 1998
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJI, B.N. KIRPAL AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.]
B
Education-In eligible students-Permission to undertake examinations
under Court orders-Deprecation of-Instance of such aberrations should
not be treated as a precedent-Such casual directions by Court is abuse of C
process-Unless justified High Court should desid from making such orders-
He/d no interference was called for under Article 136.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (c) No.
18853/1997.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.97 of the Rajasthan High Court
in DBCSA 1181 of1997.
T.C. Sharma, Neelam Shanna, Mr. Ajay Shanna and Mr. Rupesh Kumar
for the Petitioner. E
S. K. Jain and Mr.AP. Dhamija for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are F
.r 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 G
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'. H
897
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) I S.C.R
A All the same, fond hopes were raised in the minds of the students,
herein. Therefore, we decline to interfere wider Article 136 of the Constitution.
The S.L.Ps. are, accordingly, dismissed.
T.N.A. Petitions dismissed.
1
1'
'
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.