ROUNDING-OFF THE MARKS/PERCENTAGE IS INJUSTICE

Rounding-off of the marks/percentage in a qualifying examination is injustice.

 The Supreme Court in The Registrar, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore Vs Hemlatha & Others said, no provision is provided in the statute/rules which permits rounding-off of eligibility criteria prescribed for the qualifying examination for admission to PG courses in M.Sc (Nursing). When eligibility criteria are prescribed in a qualifying examination, it must be strictly adhered to. Any dilution or tampering with it will work injustice on other candidates. Rounding-off is impermissible.

The respondent had completed a bachelor of science degree in nursing with 54.71% aggregate marks.  The eligibility criteria prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council for securing admission to the PG course was 55% aggregate marks. By rounding-off method she obtained an eligibility certificate. With the said certificate she obtained admission in the management quota.

When respondent was preparing to take the annual examination, she was informed by the appellant that she was not eligible to take examination as she has secured less than 55% in the qualifying examination. She preferred writ petition in the High Court challenging the said communication. She obtained an interim order permitting to take the first and second examination. Thus, she has completed the PG course by taking both the examinations. The single judge of the Karnataka High Court, by applying the rule of rounding-off of numbers, held 54.71% be rounded-off to 55%. The division bench inclined to interfere with the discretion of the single judge.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates 

POSTAL DEPARTMENT IS DUTY BOUND TO ENSURE THAT LETTERS REACH IN TIME AGAINST ALL ODDS

The postal department is duty bound to ensure that letters reach their destination in time against all odds.

In SR.SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES DEPARTMENT OF POST VS PUSHPENDRA SINGH, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer invited applications for the post of sub-inspectors in Rajasthan police. The complainant sent his application for the said post on 28.12.2010 through speed post. The application did not reach the destination till 31.12.2010, the last day. It was tendered to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission on 04.01.2011 after 4 days of the last date. The complainant received back the envelope on 12.01.2011 with the remark ‘time barred’.

The National Consumer Commission has said, it is the duty of the State to see to it that the letter reaches within 24 hours or at the most within 48 hours from the date of its receipt. It is no part of the duty of subject to anticipate that the letter would not reach the destination due to agitation. The postal department should under all the probabilities, whether it is in its control or beyond its control, must see to it that the letters reach the destination in time.

The post office is not supposed to play with the carrier of the citizen of the country. The letters sent through speed post are always urgent and emergent. It there is a delay, it is the duty of the state to find out some other method to prevent the delay in such like matters.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

WOMAN IN A LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP AND SECOND WIFE NOT ENTITILED TO MAINTENANCE

The woman in a live-in relationship and second wife is not entitled to maintenance unless she fulfills certain parameters, the Supreme Court in VELUSAMY Vs D PATCHAIAMMAL [2010 (10) SCC 469] had observed that merely spending weekends together or a one night would not make it a domestic relationship.

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and T S Thakur said that in order to get maintenance, a women, even if not married, has to fulfill the following four requirements:

    1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

    2. They must be of legal age to marry.

    3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.

    4. They must be voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

The Supreme Court observed, in our opinion not all Live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence. If a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purposes and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.

 The Apex court passed the judgment while setting aside the concurrent orders passed by a matrimonial court and the Madras High Court awarding Rs 500 maintenance to Patchaiammal who claimed to have married the appellant D Velusamy. 

Velusamy had challenged the two Court’s order on the ground that he was already married to one Laxmi and Patchiammal was not married to him though he lived with her for some time. 

The Apex court also observed, "No doubt the view we are taking would exclude many women who have had a Live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), but then it is not for this court to legislate or amend the law. Parliament has used the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' and not 'Live-in relationship'. The court in the garb of interpretation cannot change the language of the statute," the bench observed.

Related Articles:

Mutual consent divorce in India

Legal Principles

Legal perspective of the Live-in relationship

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

NO SYMPATHY IN CORRUPTION CASES

The Supreme court refused to render mercy in a corruption case. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal & Another, observed that rampant corruption is seen in every walk of our life. People, particularly those holding high office, are frequently seen accepting illegal gratification. In such serious cases mercy at this stage may send wrong signals. The Supreme Court refused to accede to the request of the respondent No.1 to take a kindly view of the matter because he is on the verge of retirement and that he had suffered the agony of investigation since 2007.

The complaint was that the respondent No.1 demanded Rs.5000/- as bribe for the operation and for better treatment of the complainant’s aunt. The complainant gave a sum of Rs.2,500/- at the time of operation. The complainant stated that his aunt was still in hospital and the respondent No.1 was demanded the remaining sum of Rs.2,500/-. In this matter the conversation was recorded, the money was recovered and hand wash of the respondent No.1 was taken which turned pink. After following the necessary formalities, FIR came to be registered.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates