TABLE A

Sl.No.	Case No	Petitioner Name	Respondent Name	Name of Court	Subject	Brief details of Case	Operative Para(s) of Judgment
A1	Civil Appeal No.5789/2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1118/2022	St. Mary’s Education Society & Anr	Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Ors	Supreme Court of India	Service Dispute between school management and its staff	Sh. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava was the Principal in a minority school whose services was terminated by the school management on ground of indiscipline. Sh. Rajendra Prasad preferred a writ petition before Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh against the termination order under Article 226 of Constitution. Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed the petition with the contention that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 against a private institution. Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 485/2017 held a contrary view that writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter reached to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where Hon’ble SCI held that as the school is not an ‘state’ under Article 12 of the Constitution therefore writ is not maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution and upheld the stand of single judge.	Click here for detailed Order (524 KB)
A2	OA No. 3031/2017	Smt. Chitra Yadav	Chairman, CBSE & UOI	Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench Delhi	Recruitment Dispute with CBSE	Applicant belongs to OBC category and applied for post of Junior Accountant in CBSE. Applicant appeared in the written examination on 31.5.2015 in which she declared as qualified and appeared in the interview on 5.12.2015. However, her name did not appear in the list of candidates appointed. As per contention of the applicant a colourable exercise was adopted to eliminate all candidates of OBC category. Applicant prayed before Hon’ble CAT to direct the Respondents to issue appointment order for the Post of Junior Accountant to the applicant along with other appointees and grant all the consequential benefits, seniority, promotion thereof and financial benefits in respect of his pay and other benefits as per rules. The Hon’ble CAT held that the applicant, by taking reference of several judgments in similar cases, has not questioned about the selection process before interview or at the time of interview hoping of favour in securing the job by selection committee and therefore dismissed the OA.	Click here for detailed Order (412 KB)
A3	W.P. (C) 8552/2012	Aarushi Goyal	Central Board of Secondary Education	High Court of Delhi at New Delhi	Examination/Re-evaluation Case	A commerce student had appeared for her Class XII AISSCE examination conducted by the respondent/CBSE in March 2017. Aggrieved by the nature of the evaluation conducted by the respondent, on 13.09.2017, the petitioner had filed a civil writ petition bearing No.8552/2017 before this Court seeking directions to the respondent to re-evaluate her answer books in Economics and English (Core) in a proper manner and to provide her with a copy of the said answer books after re-evaluation. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the petition being found no merit.	Click here for detailed Order (711 KB)
A4	W.P.(C) 6123/2018 & CM APPL. 23758/2018	Smt. Khazani Devi Educational Society	Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors	High Court of Delhi at Delhi	Examination/ Unfair Means Case	This matter is related to leakage of question paper of AISSCE-2018 by some of the school teachers. After proper enquiry, the Board vide order dated 09.05.2018 issued an order for withdrawal of provisional affiliation of the school. The school approached High Court against the withdrawal of provisional affiliation by CBSE. The Honb’le Court vide its order dated 08.01.2019 accepted the contention of the Board for disaffiliation of the school.	Click here for detailed Order (276 KB)
A5	Civil Appeal No. 11230 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 18525 of 2018)	The Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr.	T.K. Rangarajan and Ors	Supreme Court of India	Examination/ Academic matter	The main grievance of the Petitioners before the High Court seems to have been that the Tamil translation of the English questions misled them. As the translation did not have the same meaning as the English questions, since some of the words used in Tamil were not accurately translated from English. This led to incorrect answers. This being so, the Petitioners prayed for the grant of ’Grace Marks’ to all the students who gave the NEET-UG, 2018 Examination in the Tamil medium for all 49 questions in which such errors occurred. The CBSE justified the method adopted by it as the principle of equivalent difficulty. The High Court vide ordered to grant grace marks to all 49 questions of Tamil medium. The Division Bench upheld the view of single judge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 22.11.2018 set aside the High Court order.	Click here for detailed Order (74.1 KB)
A6	LPA 289/2018	Central Board of Secondary Education	Meenakshi Sharma & Anr	High Court of Delhi at New Delhi	Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) matter	Joint Entrance Examinations process began on 01.01.2018. The answer keys to the questions published on 24.04.2018 and could be challenged within 03 days. Petitioner objected to four answers in the Physics and Chemistry section. The petitioner’s objections were not accepted. The petitioner filed WP 5157/2018 in High Court with contention that according to the expert advice received by her the award of marks in respect of four choices of questions in her case was incorrect. Hon’ble High Court permitted the petitioner to appear in the Exam would be subject to the outcome of the present petition. The Board challenged the order before Division Bench whereby division bench vide order dated 18.05.2018 dismissed the order of single judge in W.P. 5157/2018.	Click here for detailed Order (513 KB)
A7	W.P.(C) 4454/2017	TRINITY ACADEMY	CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION & ANR	High Court of Delhi at New Delhi	Affiliation matter	Petitioner is a school sought affiliation to the CBSE. Petitioner school has applied online in July, 2014 seeking affiliation. Petitioner was declared a minority educational institution in terms of Section 2(g) of NCMEI Act 2004 on 16.11.2016. On 27.12.2016 the application of the petitioner seeking affiliation had been rejected by the CBSE for want of NOC to be issued by the State Government. Submission of petitioner school was that pursuant to the order of NCMEI dated 18.01.2017 an NOC certificate dated 09.02.2017 had been obtained by the petitioner school under Section 10(3) read with Section 12A of the NCMEI Act which was dully forwarded to the respondent but the same was not considered. High Court dismissed the petition with costs upon the petitioner and held that NCMEI Act is applicable to ‘university’ while petitioner is a school.	Click here for detailed Order (271 KB)
A8	CWP No.2891 of 2016 (O&M)	Priya Mann	University Grant Commission & CBSE	High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh	UGC NET Examination /Academic matter	The CBSE conducted the UGC-NET 2014 on 28.12.2014 for determining the eligibility of for appointment as Assistant Professors. The petitioner through this writ petition challenged the answers to four questions in the revised answer key dated 30.12.2015 and prayed to declare her result as ‘qualified’ for eligibility to appointed as Assistant Professor. The petitioner has only placed reliance on certain books and not on the expert report(s). The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition devoid of any merit.	Click here for detailed Order (153 KB)
A9	Appeal (civil) 4908 of 2006	Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian & Ors	C.B.S.E. & Ors.	Supreme Court of India	Examination/ Affiliation matter	The Writ Appeal is related to 159 students of Class X and 121 students of class XII of the Cambridge School, Tatisilwai, Ranchi for appearing in the examination which was scheduled to be held on 1st March, 2006. Initially learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the school was not affiliated to the CBSE and, therefore, no direction sought for could be given. Aggrieved with the decision of learned single judge, appeal is filed under Clause 10 of Letters Patent and the same view was endorsed. Thereafter the writ appeal was filed before SCI with a view that for no fault of theirs, the academic career of nearly 300 students is being jeopardized. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the writ appeal and held that though the ultimate victims are innocent students cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant.	Click here for detailed Order (29.6 KB)
A10	Civil Appeal No. 3905 of 2011(with other connected matters)	Jigya Yadav (Minor) (Through Guardian/father Hari Singh)	Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors	Supreme Court of India	Correction/Change in Particulars in CBSE documents	Various students with requests to change/amend their name, date of birth etc. approached different High Courts resulting into inconsistent outcomes leading up to batch of appeals filed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Supreme Court of India vide detailed analysis issued guidelines how to change/correct name of candidate, name of parents and date of birth.	Click here for detailed Order (661 KB)
A11	Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2011	The Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/ Pre-Dental Examination, C.B.S.E. & Ors.	Khushboo Shrivastava & Ors.	Supreme Court of India	Rechecking/Re-evaluation of Answer sheets	The case was filed by the respondent aggrieved against no provision of rechecking/re-evaluation of answer sheets of AIPMT conducted by CBSE. Respondent sought direction from the Hon’ble Court to direct CBSE to conduct a re-evaluation of her answer sheets and to re-total the marks and publish the result. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition in favour of Board.	Click here for detailed Order (121 KB)
A12	Civil Appeal No. 4971/2022 @ SLP (C) No. 11651/2021	The Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr	Keshav Narayan & Anr	Supreme Court of India	Rechecking/Re-evaluation of Answer sheets	The matter was filed for re-evaluation of answer sheets without following the CBSE modalities for re-evaluation of the same before Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal in favour of Board and set aside the order of single judge and division bench and upheld the view of the Board that 33 lakhs candidates take the examination and if this process is not followed strictly, the re-evaluation process itself will become unworkable.	Click here for detailed Order (47.7 KB)
A13	W.P. (C) 522/2021	Mamta Sharma	Central Board of Secondary Education	Supreme Court of India	Conducting of Examination arising out of COVID pandemic situation	Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 17.06.2021 approved the policy of the Board for Marking scheme for Class XII Examination 2020-2021 and vide its order dated 22-06-2021 dismissed the plea of conducting examinations and upheld that the Board is autonomous body and at liberty to decide the manner of conducting or not conducting the examination and it is not bound upon the Board to take same decisions as adopted by other boards.	For order dated 17.06.2021 click here (65.0 KB) For order dated 22-06-2021 click here (68.9 KB)
A14	WP (C) No. 3578 of 2024 DoJ :Apr 16, 2024	Rewant Ahlawat	Central Board of Secondary Education	High Court of Delhi at New Delhi	Correction in Date of Birth	By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks correction in his date of birth from 14.09.2000 (as recorded in the Secondary School Examination Certificate) to 14.09.1999. It was the claim of the petitioner that his original Birth Certificate was lost in a car theft. The petitioner’s father applied for a fresh Birth Certificate with GNCTD. In the fresh Birth certificate the DoB was mentioned as 14.09.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner graduated from National Defence Academy and joined the Indian Military Academy in 2021-22. The petitioner visited Passport Seva Kendra, Pune where he came to know that a Passport already stand issued in his name with DoB as 14.09.1999. The petitioner, then, sourced an original ‘correct, birth certificate by accessing the website of Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On the basis of this second Birth Certificate sought correction in his DoB. The Hon’ble Court while adjudicating the matter, dismissed the WP with the following observation : (a) The petitioner neither approached the school nor impleaded it as a party in the WP; (b) Limitation period specified by the CBSE; (c) Two Birth Certificates of petitioner, both issued by Government Authorities; (d) Non-production of other Public Documents to support his case Further, the High Court in Para 12 of this judgment has held the period of 1 year (prescribed by CBSE) sacrosanct by application of the judgment in Jigya Yadav.	Click here for detailed Order (2.12 MB)

TABLE B

Sl.No.	Case No	Petitioner Name	Respondent Name	Name of Court	Subject	Brief details of Case	Operative Para(s) of Judgment
B1	Civil Appeal No. 367/2017	Ran Vijay Singh & Ors	State of U.P. & Ors	Supreme Court of India	Challenging answers of Answer key	U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board invited applications for the post of TGTs. A batch of 77 writ petitions was filed in the Allahabad High Court for wrong evaluation. Learned single judge of high court personally examined seven questions and passed a judgment for re-examination of answer sheets of these 77 writ petitions after seeing some errors in the answer to seven questions. Appellate Bench also upheld the same view. Thereafter the UPSESS Board filed Civil Appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where the Hon’ble SCI vide its order dated 11.12.2017 mentioned that neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and award any additional marks to candidates in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters.	Click here for detailed Order (387 KB)
B2	R/Special Civil App. No. 8463/2022	Manishkumar Rameshchandra Parekh	State of Gujarat	High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad	Seniority Issue	The petitioners were appointed as Revenue Talatis in 2010 on a fixed pay for a period of five years. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized in service vide an order dated 11.04.2016. After regularisation a request of transfer the petitioner was transferred upon an undertaking to lose seniority by petitioner. The petitioner in effect lost two years of his service on a regular basis for the purposes of seniority. Thereafter, State came up with a resolution dated 18.01.2017 which provided a policy of considering the period of five years of the incumbents who were appointed on a fixed pay for the purposes of seniority, promotion, higher pay scale and terminal benefits from their initial date of engagement and not from the date of their regularization. Present petitioners who were appointed prior to the resolution would in effect by virtue of his transfer not only lose the two years of their seniority but there will be no regard and the benefit for other purposes even of the past five years. The policy therefore is under challenge. Hon’ble Court held that it could not have been the intention of the undertaking when the petitioners given such undertakings in the year 2015 when they opted for transfer. The Court provided relief to the petitioner.	Click here for detailed Order (331 KB)
B3	W.P.(C) 572/2020	Vishv Mohan	DoPT & Ors	High Court of Delhi	Recruitment matter	The Petitioner applied for recruitment of All India Service for the year 2015 under the Visually Handicapped category. His medical examination was conducted and the doctor certified the extent of his handicap as 20%. He was examined by the Appellate Board which too found his disability 20%. The petitioner’s candidature was cancelled by DoPT as minimum handicap requirement is 40%. Petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the medical reports and order passed by the DOP&T. The Petitioner relied upon a certificate dated 26.02.2016 obtained by him upon his medical examination at AIIMS according to which his handicap was assessed at 75%. But the Tribunal dismissed the OA. Petitioner assailed the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27.09.2018 by W.P.(C) 12481/2018. The Hon’ble High Court on the basis of several medical reports set aside the order of tribunal and directed to consider the candidature of candidate.	Click here for detailed Order (410 KB)
B4	W.P. No. 5202 of 2016	Mritunjaya Shukla	Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors	High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Madhya Pradesh	Service dispute	The present petition had been filed by the Principal of an unaided public school being aggrieved by illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents No. 2 & 3 in not disbursing the payment of his terminal dues. The maintainability of the writ in this case has been discussed by court and the Hon’ble Court has held that in this case the writ is maintainable as the institution is governed by the statute framed by the state.	Click here for detailed Order (475 KB)
B5	W.P.(C) 1901/2015	Birpal Singh	Nutan Marathi Senior Secondary School & Ors	High Court of Delhi at New Delhi	Service Dispute	Petitioner was appointed by the Selection Committee for the post of PGT (Maths). He was not considered for promotion as Vice-Principal against the post of vice-principal. Therefore he filed a writ in the high court. Hon’ble high Court held that every linguistic minority has a constitutional right to conserve its culture and language. Thus, it would also have a right to choose teachers, who possess the eligibility and qualifications, as provided, without really being influenced by the fact of their religion and community and the same can be done by the process defined by the school management. Linguistic and cultural compatibility can be legitimately claimed as one of the desirable features of a linguistic minority in relation to selection of eligible and qualified teachers.	Click here for detailed Order (1.74 MB)
B6	WP(C)/2770/2016	Anil Singh and Anr	The State of Assam and 4 Ors	The Gauhati High Court	Service Dispute	This matter is related to a government employee having heirs from two wives, where second marriage is void as per hindu marriage act, who died intestate where gratuity amount has not been released for deciding of ‘legal heirs’. The Hon’ble High Court has decided children from second marriage as legal heirs though the second marriage was void and ordered to distribute the gratuity amount among all the legal heirs, considering children from second wife as legal heir.	Click here for detailed Order (86.6 KB)
B7	WP(C) No. 11021 of 2016	Sudheer Ram S. & Ors	The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors	High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam	Service matter	This case is related to salary of a person wherein Hon’ble High Court held that salary of a government employee in service cannot be lower than that of his juniors.	Click here for detailed Order (104 KB)
B8	WP (C) 5527 of 2022	Raju Prosad Sarma	State of Assam	The Gauhati High Court	Using Unfair Means in Exams	The notification dated 18.08.2022 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, temporarily suspending mobile internet connectivity during the examination hours in connection with the recruitment drive undertaken by the State, is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground of fundamental rights of using internet. The Hon’ble Court dismissed the application for interim relief.	Click here for detailed Order (100 KB)
B9	Civil Reference No. 1/2022 Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7343/2019	Priyanka Shrimali	State of Rajasthan, Secretary, Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur & Ors	High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur	Compassionate Ground appointment	The petition was filed to declare provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 unconstitutional to the extent it envisage that besides spouse and son only 'unmarried daughter' is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment. The petitioner, a married daughter of a deceased Government Servant sought compassionate appointment as the only child of the deceased, even after the marriage, she was living with her parents and now father only. however, on account of the provisions of the Rules of 1996, her candidature was rejected by state government indicating that married daughter is not eligible for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996. The three judges bench ordered in favour of petitioner.	Click here for detailed Order (172 KB)
B10	Civil Appeal No. 3911 of 2003 in RP No. 2167 of 2002 DoJ :Sep 04, 2009	Bihar School Examination Board	Suresh Prasad Sinha	Supreme Court of India at New Delhi	Maintainability of litigations filed against the CBSE in District / State / National Consumer Redressal Forums / Commission	This appeal by special leave was filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.10.2002 in R.P. No. 2167/02 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The complainant (respondent herein) prayed for compensation from the District Consumer Forum on alleged non-declaration of result of his ward by the BSEB. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 10 of the judgment observed that – “The process of holding examinations, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results and issuing certificates are different stages of a single statutory non-commercial function. It is not possible to divide this function as partly statutory and partly administrative. When the Examination Board conducts an examination in discharge of its statutory function, it does not offer its “services” to any candidate. Nor does a student who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, hires or avails of any service from the Board for a consideration. On the other hand, a candidate who participates in the examination conducted by the Board, is a person who has undergone a course of study and who requests the Board to test him as to whether he has imbibed sufficient knowledge to be fit to be declared as having successfully completed the said course of education; and if so, determine his position or rank or competence vis-à-vis other examinees. The process is not therefore availment of a service by a student, but participation in a general examination conducted by the Board to ascertain whether he is eligible and fit to be considered as having successfully completed the secondary education course. The examination fee paid by the student is not the consideration for availment of any service, but the charge paid for the privilege of participation in the examination.” After reasonable consideration on various decisions and principles laid down in the judgments referred therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court is of the view that the Bihar School Examination Board is not rendering any ‘service’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and set aside the complaints filed by the respondents against the Board or University being not maintainable.	Click here for detailed Order (161 KB)
B11	Civil Appeal No. 431 of 2010 in WA No. 730 of 2007 DoJ : Sep 01, 2022	Ramkrishan Ashram & Ors.	Shashwat Pandey & Ors	Supreme Court of India at New Delhi	Fixation of pay in r/o Teaching Staffs of affiliated non-aided / independent schools / institutions at par with Central / State Govt. pay.	The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment dt. 17.01.2008 passed by the Hon’ble DB of High Court of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in WA No. 73/2007, whereby the Writ Appeal preferred by the teachers was allowed directing the appellants to pay the pay scales as per the norms prescribed by the CBSE. The stand of the appellants before the High Court was that the respondents were working on contract basis and, therefore, the norms fixed by the CBSE, will not be applicable as it is applicable to the regularly appointed teachers. Such fact could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents. In view of the above, the Appeal was allowed on the short question that the respondents are not entitled to the regular pay scale in a school affiliated to the CBSE. The impugned judgment dt. 17.01.2008 of the High Court is set aside.	Click here for detailed Order (3.11 MB)