Latest Cases on Education Law

A. Education Law — Examination — Correction/Modification in Examination Certificate — Change sought to be effected on basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document — Insistence by Education Board for prior permission/declaration by court and publication in Official Gazette — Tenability of — Obligation of Education Board to issue fresh certificate incorporating change — Held, where change is to be effected on basis of new acquired name without any supporting school record or public document, that request may be entertained upon by insisting for prior permission/declaration by court of law in that regard and publication in the Official Gazette including surrender/return of original certificate (or duplicate original certificate) issued by Education Board and upon payment of prescribed fees — Under S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 civil court is competent to grant declaration of status or right which includes legal character of any person — Such decree would operate against the world at large as decree in rem, like the Board or Department concerned — Fresh certificate would retain original entry and caption/annotation inserted indicating date on which it has been recorded and other details [State of U.P. v. Sameer Rao, (2025) 1 HCC (All) 1]

B. Education Law — U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (10 of 1973) — S. 31 — Appointment of Teachers — Appointment via Selection Committees — Regularisation of Teacher in terms of Cl. 15(7)(iv) of the Schedule of the University of Allahabad Act of 2005 — Petitioner, a research fellow engaged in teaching on regular basis along with other duties contending that by imparting instruction in classes, would qualify as teacher as per 1973 Act — Held, appointment of petitioner cannot be regularised — Appointment on permanent basis only on recommendation of regular Selection Committee — Held, on facts, as Selection Committee not duly constituted, petitioner not qualified for appointment on permanent basis as requisite conditions not met [Rajnish Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, (2025) 1 HCC (All) 37]

C. Education Law — Examination — Declaration/Regularisation/Cancellation of Result — Declaration of results — Affiliated colleges — Withholding of examination results of students by university on ground of non-payment of affiliation fees and other dues by colleges — Permissibility of — Held, careers and future prospects of students stand on a pedestal beyond the reach of colleges and universities and form part of the protection guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution — Withholding of examination results operates in the same manner as withholding of educational certificates, both having the effect of obstructing students’ academic progression and future opportunities — Further held, while university is entitled to recover its dues and may adopt lawful coercive measures against defaulting colleges, it cannot use students’ examination results as a means of enforcing financial claims against affiliated institutions — Held on facts, results of viva-voce examinations were withheld solely on account of alleged arrears due from affiliated colleges — Students were not parties to the dispute and could not be made to suffer for alleged defaults of colleges — Action taken held impermissible and university directed to release the results — Constitution of India, Art. 21 [M. Karthikeya Degree College v. State of A.P., (2025) 1 HCC (AP) 182]

D. Education Law — Goa School Education Act, 1984 (15 of 1985) — S. 29 — “Power to make rules” — State Government exercising its rule-making power under S. 29 in accordance with Rules of Business of the Government of Goa, 1991 and National Education Policy, 2020 or issued arbitrary notification causing hardship and infrastructural inadequacies — Validity of — Amendment of educational rules — Change in commencement date of academic year for Grades 6 to 10 and 12 under R. 21 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 — Notification — Challenge to — Grounds of arbitrariness, procedural lapse and failure to consider objections — Held, State Government validly exercised its rule-making power under S. 29 by duly publishing draft notification considering objections and issuing final notification — Amendment aligns with National Education Policy, 2020, ensuring required instructional hours and working days — Notification duly signed by authorised Director of Education and issued in accordance with Rules of Business of the Government of Goa, 1991 — Further held, objections based on inconvenience, hardship and alleged infrastructural inadequacies not render decision arbitrary — Judicial interference in policy decisions limited and not extend to mere hardship or disagreement with policy — Therefore, notification legally valid and not arbitrary — Petition dismissed [Savio Norvin Menezes v. Union of India, (2025) 3 HCC (Bom) 95]

E. Education Law — Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions — Officers/Authorities/Staff, Faculty, etc. — Teachers/Part-time Teachers/Lecturers — Teaching vis-à-vis non-teaching staff — Nature of job determining factor — Held, person, who, in course of their employment renders duties of teacher would be teaching staff and as sequitur, person whose nature of job doesn’t involve rendering duties of teacher, would fall under head of non-teaching staff — Fundamental nature of work of employee distinct from that of teacher — Teaching staff required to deliver lectures, complete workload and contact hours as set out in University Statutes — Classification of teaching and non-teaching staff would determine nature of benefits as well as service conditions available to employee, specifically, benefits in relation to vacation — Employee concerned availed benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme, which only non-teaching staff is entitled to — Employee not appointed in post that involves imparting instructions to students or conducting research — Even mode of appointment for employee concerned differs from teaching staff — Supporting teaching staff cannot be taken as equivalent to or same as teaching staff [Anant S. Patil v. State of Goa, (2025) 1 HCC (Bom) 429]

F. Education Law — Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 — R. 3 — Promotion of junior teacher as Headmaster — Promotion — Eligibility conditions/criteria — Responsibility to obtain relinquishment of claim from senior teachers — Held, responsibility for obtaining written relinquishment of claim (no objection) from senior teachers lies with management and not with junior teacher — It is for management, having decided to promote a junior teacher, to secure such relinquishment and place it before Education Officer — Junior teacher cannot be faulted for absence of NOC [Damodar Kashinath Mhase v. Jyotiba Education Society, (2025) 1 HCC (Bom) 498]

G. Education Law — Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions — Service Conditions — Parity — Entitlement to continue up to 60 years of age — Denial of benefits — Legality of — Whether Shiksha Mitras engaged under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) Scheme entitled to parity in service conditions, including continuation in service up to 60 years of age and enhanced remuneration, in terms of Government Orders dt. 9-6-2010 and 9-8-2010, on a par with other categories of contractual teachers and associates under the same project — Held, denial of benefits to Shiksha Mitras, working under same project i.e. SSA wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory — Respondent-Shiksha Mitra accrued rights under Govt. orders dt. 9-6-2010 & 9-8-2010 allowing him to continue in service until 60 years of age with other consequential benefits since he comes within meaning of “other associates” as stipulated in aforesaid Government orders — Shiksha Mitra also entitled to remuneration commensurate with other similarly placed personnel [Paschim Banga Sarva Shiksha Mission v. Krishnendu Biswas, (2025) 1 HCC (Cal) 508]

H. Education Law — Examination — Evaluation/Marking/Grace marks — Errors in Common Law Admission Test 2025 (CLAT-UG 2025) examination caused by Consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) — Relief/Remedy to candidates appearing for the examination — Entitlement to — Examination conducted with multiple sets of question papers and negative marking — Provisional answer key released, objections invited, final key published — Candidates dissatisfied with evaluation approach — Held on facts, error or discrepancy in certain sets/questions/answer attributable to Consortium of NLUs — Further held on facts, candidates not at fault for incorrect/correct answers — Directions issued — All candidates who participated in CLAT-UG 2025 be granted marks indicated against said question — Consortium of NLUs to revise marksheet and republish/renotify final list of selected candidates [Shivraj Sharma v. Consortium of NLUs, (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 132*]

I. Education Law — Admission — Admission Procedure — Allotment of Seats/College/Speciality/Course/Counselling/Wait list — Participation in Joint Admission Council (JAC) counselling and seat allotment by JEE (Mains) 2025 of qualified candidates whose Class XII results [through National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS)] awaited — Permissibility of — Strict adherence to admission schedules — Consideration of — Petitioners seeking interim relief to register and participate in JAC counselling and requesting NIOS to expedite result declaration — Petitioners contending that they be allowed to participate in JAC counselling despite NIOS result delays, as they having qualified JEE (Mains) 2025 and delay not being caused by them — JAC contending that counselling process being conducted following strict eligibility criteria and schedule process, and any deviations would disrupt admissions, and JoSSA clarifying that Class XII results not required at time of registration — Held, no direction to JAC for rescheduling or deferring counselling dates, ensuring strict adherence to admission schedule — Students securing good rank and percentile not to be deprived of participating in counselling merely because their Class XII results not being timely declared — Proper coordination between counselling authorities and examining Boards directed to ensure that meritorious candidates not excluded from admission process due to administrative lapses — Further directions issued — NIOS to expedite declaration of Class XII result — Petitioners permitted to register for JAC counselling physically, with seat allotment being made conditional upon submission of Class XII result before first round — In the event, result not being declared before single-day window, petitioners permitted to register either physically or online, with seat allotment being conditional upon submission of Class XII result before second round — Further, JAC to notify similarly placed candidates and extend same benefit to them — Present order passed in peculiar facts of case and shall not be create any special equity — Timelines for filing counter-affidavit and rejoinder fixed, and matter renotified — Petition allowed [Akshita Sehrawat v. Delhi Technical University, (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 752]

J. Education Law — Admission — Admission Procedure — Prospectus — Standardization formula — Change of rules midway — Modification of prospectus after conduct of entrance examination — Validity of — Power under clause reserving right of modification — Scope of — Held, though prospectus may reserve power in Government to modify/add/delete provisions, such power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in a manner that changes rules of the game after commencement of selection process — Introduction of substantially different standardization formula just before publication of rank list, and contrary to Expert Committee recommendation, is legally impermissible — Clause enabling modification does not authorise midstream alteration affecting merit determination — Amendment set aside [State of Kerala v. Garry Vino George, (2025) 1 HCC (Ker) 444]