LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
βš–οΈ Ask the AI about your situation:πŸš— Car AccidentπŸ’Ό Work / Job🏠 Housing / EvictionπŸ‘ͺ Family / DivorceπŸ“‹ Contract DisputeπŸ’° Money Owed

GOA, DAMAN AND DIU BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION versus KUMARI HEMA LAAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 16-08-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

430 
A 
B 
GOA, DAMAN AND DIU BOARD OF SECONDARY 
EDUCATTON 
y. 
KUMAR! HEMA LAAD AND ORS. 
August 16, 1984 
[D.A. DESAI ;\ND V. BALAKR!SHNA ERADI, JJ.] 
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 -ClauΒ·es (I) and (2) of rule 3 7 insofar as they prohibit 
inspection a'ld/or revaluation of answer books-Validity of-Held valid. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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. 
Allowing the appeals. 
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] 
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education 
and another v. Paritosh Bhupejh1 K111narsheth and others, d1:cided by Supreme 
Court [1985] l S.C.R. 29. 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION 
to 4157 of 1982. 
' 
Civil Appeal Nos. 4152 
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
fl 
the 2nd November, 1982 of the I)ombay Hi$h Court, Panaji Bench, 
... 
β€’ 
., 
EDUCATION BOARD, GOA v. K. 11. LAAD (B. Eradi, J.) 
43 l 
(Goa), in Special Civil Application Writ Petitions Nos 129, 110, 
A 
103, 101, 102 and lOl of 1980. 
So/i J. Sorabjee, Mrs. A. K. Verma and 0. C. Mathur for the 
Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 Edu-
cation 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 Secon-
dary 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 Judg-
ment (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. 
H.S.K. 
Appeal allowed. 
(I) [t985] I S.C.R. 29. 
"Β· 
B 
c 
,, 
D 
E 
F