9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Opportunity to represent case before Board prior to passing impugned order, nature of the order imposed by the Board, power of the Board to condone shortage of lectures, possible courses for the Board to consider. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue of whether a student, referred to as the petitioner, was entitled to an opportunity to represent her case before the Board prior to the passing of an impugned order. The facts revealed that the petitioner had failed an Intermediate examination and her result was not declared by the Board due to attendance concerns. The Board subsequently cancelled her examination for condoning her absence from lectures, leading to a legal challenge. The High Court held that the Board, by cancelling the examination, acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and imposed a penalty without giving the petitioner a chance to present her case. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the denial of the examination's fruits constituted a penalty, and the Board's actions were quasi-judicial in nature. The judgment also addressed the power of the Board to condone the shortage of lectures and the possible courses of action available to the Board. The Court declined to delve into these questions, stating that it was for the Board to decide after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel had outlined potential courses for the Board, including accepting the principal's explanation, condoning the shortage of lectures, refraining from taking any action, framing new regulations, or providing an authoritative interpretation of relevant clauses. However, the Court refrained from ruling on the legality or appropriateness of these courses at that stage. In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, upholding the High Court's decision that the Board's order was a penalty imposed in a quasi-judicial capacity without affording the petitioner an opportunity to present her case. The Court emphasized the importance of principles of natural justice and ruled that the Board should reconsider the case after giving the petitioner a chance to explain, without delving into the specifics of the Board's power to condone the shortage of lectures or the potential courses of action available to the Board.
|
