Allowed¶31

Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary Education v. Kumari Hema Laad and Ors.

Supreme Court16 Aug 19841984 INSC 144 · [1985] 1 S.C.R. 4301984 INSC 144

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education; Kumari Hema Laad; Rule 37 clauses (1) and (2); Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Rules, 1975; prohibition of inspection and/or revaluation of answer books; XII standard examination; Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth; AIR 1981 Bombay 895 overruled; [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29 followed; Regulation 104(3) Maharashtra State Board; writ petitions dismissed; appeals allowed with costs; V. Balakrishna Eradi; D.A. Desai; 1984.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside; writ petitions filed in the High Court stand dismissed; appellant entitled to costs from the respondents. ¶31

Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary Education versus Kumari Hema Laad and Ors. — Supreme Court (1985) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside; writ petitions filed in the High Court stand dismissed; appellant entitled to costs from the respondents.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Rules, 1975, insofar as they prohibit inspection and/or revaluation of answer books, are valid.

¶10

Court's answer

The present case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29, by which the Bombay High Court's earlier decision relied on in the impugned judgment was reversed.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the validity of clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act is upheld.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeals by special leave against a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Panaji Bench) dated 2 November 1982 allowing writ petitions filed by students who appeared in the XII standard examination conducted by the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, and declaring clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act ultra vires and invalid insofar as they prohibit inspection and/or revaluation of answer books. The High Court had followed its earlier decision in Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, AIR 1981 Bombay 895. Held, allowing the appeals: the present case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29, by which this Court reversed the view taken by the Bombay High Court; the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the validity of clauses (1) and (2) of Rule 37 is upheld; the writ petitions stand dismissed and the appellant gets its costs from the respondents.

¶1

430

¶2

¶3

GOA, DAMAN AND DIU BOARD OF SECONDARY

¶4

EDUCATTON

¶5

¶6

KUMAR! HEMA LAAD AND ORS.

¶7

¶8

August 16, 1984

¶9

[D.A. DESAI ;\ND V. BALAKR!SHNA ERADI, JJ.]

¶10

Goa, Da1nan and Jiu Secondary and Hig.'ier Secondary Education Rules, C 1975-Framed under Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act -Clau·es (I) and (2) of rule 3 7 insofar as they prohibit inspection a'ld/or revaluation of answer books-Validity of-Held valid.

On being challenged, the Bombay High Court, following its earlier decision in Paritosh Bhupeih Ku111arsheth and others v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune and another, AIR 1981 Bombay 895, declared clauses (1) and (2) of Ruic 37 of Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Rules, 1975 insofar as they prohibit inspection and/or revaluation of answer books. as invalid. Hence these appeals by special leave.

¶15

Allowing the appeals.

¶16

HELD : The decision followed by the Bombay High Court has been overruled by this Court in Mal:arashtra State Board of Secondary and Hfgher Secondary Educatio1 and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Ku1narjheth and others (1985] 1 S.C.R. 29. The present case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in the said ruling. Hence the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the validity of clauses (l) and (2) of Rule 37 is upheld. [431F-G]

¶17

...

¶18

Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupejh 1 K111narsheth and others, d1:cided by Supreme Court [1985] l S.C.R. 29.

¶19

¶20

' CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4152 to 4157 of 1982.

¶21

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated fl the 2nd November, 1982 of the I)ombay Hi$h Court, Panaji Bench,

¶22

EDUCATION BOARD, GOA v. K. 11. LAAD (B. Eradi, J.) 43 l

¶23

¶24

¶25

(Goa), in Special Civil Application Writ Petitions Nos 129, 110, 103, 101, 102 and lOl of 1980.

¶26

"·

¶27

So/i J. Sorabjee, Mrs. A. K. Verma and 0. C. Mathur for the Appellant.

¶28

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶29

¶30

•

¶31

BALA!::RJSHNA BRAD!, J. These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Bombay (Panaji Bench) dated 2.l l.1982 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court allowed a batch of Writ Petitions filed by some students who had appeared in the XII standard examination conducted by the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and declared the provisions of clauses(!) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed by the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu under Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act as ultra vires and invalid insofar as thoy prohibit inspection and/or revaluation of answer books. In reaching the said conclusion on the. validity of the impugned rules the High Court followed its earlier Judgment in Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and others v. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Eduaation, Pune and another-AIR 198! Bombay 895-wherein Regulation 104 (3) framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education which is an identical provision prohibiting inspection and/or revaluation of answer books was declared illegal.and ultra vires. The correctness of the said Judgment (AIR 1981 Bombay 895) came in for examination by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and others.(1) By Judgment dated 17th July 1984, this Court reversed the view taken by the Bombay High Court and upheld the validity of the impugned clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104. The present case is fully covered by the dicta laid down in the said ruling. Hence we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and uphold the validity of clauses (l) and (2) of Rule 37 of the rules framed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board Act. These appeals are allowed and the writ petitions filed in the High Court will stand dismissed. The appellant "ill get its costs from the respondents.

Appeal allowed.

H.S.K.

(I) [t985] I S.C.R. 29.