Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court allowed a challenge over mother-tongue education, directing Rajasthan to frame policy for Rajasthani as an educational language and school subject.
Part time contractual instructors/teachers who had been continuously engaged since 2013 ceased to remain merely contractual or part-time and are to be treated as employed permanently against deemed substantive posts; honorarium fixed under initial contract is revisable periodically and cannot remain stagnant or be unilaterally reduced once enhanced; PAB had determined honorarium at Rs.17,000 per month for 2017-18 and, therefore, instructors/teachers are entitled to Rs.17,000 per month with effect from 2017-18 until further revision by PAB; the State must pay the honorarium and may recover the…
Source excerpt
By a majority (3:2) the Court held that the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 is constitutionally valid: economic criteria can permissibly be the basis of affirmative action; exclusion of SCs/STs/OBCs (SEBCs) from EWS reservation is a form of compensatory discrimination that does not violate the equality code; and a 10% EWS reservation in addition to existing reservations does not breach the 50% ceiling insofar as that ceiling is not inflexible and principally applies to reservations under Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4). Consequently the challenge to the 103rd Amendmen…
Source excerpt
Absorption of Shiksha Mitras as Assistant Teachers without mandated qualifications is unconstitutional; the State cannot dilute statutory requirements for teacher appointments, and regularization of such contractually appointed persons is impermissible.
Source excerpt
The university’s refusal to grant affiliation was untenable since all the objections raised concerned areas exclusively within the jurisdiction of AICTE, and the respondents failed to show any violation of university-specific norms regarding eligibility or manner of admission. Therefore, the decision declining affiliation was set aside, and affiliation was directed to be granted.
Source excerpt
It was not permissible for the Administration to alter the basis of admission after the process had started. The admissions already granted to the appellants' children under the Inter-State Transfer category prior to the Notification dated 27th February, 2014, must not be disturbed. The administration is directed to accommodate such students, and this relief is confined to those who approached the Court.
Source excerpt
Article 15(5) and Article 21A are constitutionally valid and do not alter the basic structure or abrogate rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21; the Right to Education Act, 2009 is valid for non-minority private unaided schools but ultra vires the Constitution insofar as it applies to minority schools covered under Article 30(1).
Source excerpt
The amendment to Section 4(1) and its proviso restricts the university's scope solely to vedic learning, violating the fundamental right to education and equality under Articles 14 and 21; the State lacks legislative competence to restrict courses and centers, which fall under Entry 66 List I; the Chancellor appointment procedure does not violate university autonomy.
Source excerpt
States are obligated to provide essential infrastructure in all schools, including toilets for boys and girls, drinking water, sufficient classrooms, and appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, as part of the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory education under Article 21A and in compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Such directions apply equally to all schools, state or private, aided or unaided, minority or non-minority.
Source excerpt
Despite the respondent lacking statutory eligibility (PTC), his termination constituted victimisation and discrimination as other similarly qualified teachers continued in service. The courts below upheld reinstatement due to mala fide conduct by the management and lack of valid grounds for interference. The appeal was dismissed, recognising the illegality and malice of the employer and noting that permitting benefit from their own wrong was impermissible.
Source excerpt
Explore more
