Plea Filed in AP High Court Stating AIBE Has Proved to Be a Hurdle

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

The petitioner filed a writ petition in Andhra Pradesh High court challenging the withholding of AIBE results earlier in March 2020. Another plea was filed on Aug 06, against notification dated 30th July. This notification indefinitely postponed the AIBE 2020.

Brief Facts

The petitioner had appeared for the exam in September 2019. The results of 9 centres including centre at Visakhapatnam (petitioner’s centre). Aggrieved by the action, Advocate Bilal Syed had filed a petition in March 2020 against the impugned decision. Later the notification postponing AIBE indefinitely was issued on July 30,2020. 

Submissions of the Petitioner

The petitioner has submitted that the respondent had absolutely no grounds for taking the said decision. He also submitted that the mismatch in code was not the fault of the students and they must not be punished for the same. Further, it was stated that the exam was an open book exam and thus there is no scope of malpractice in the same. it was submitted that merely because the respondent held the exam they can not withhold the results without a valid reason. It is important to consider the future of the lawyers who appeared for the exam and awaited the result, submitted by the petitioner. He has further contended that the entire centre must not be held for cheating, rather an individual guilty should only be held accountable. 

thereby pleading the court to issue order, direction or writ against the impugned notification. He also stated that BCI has allowed universities to promote students considering their internal marks. Thus a similar approach should be adopted for AIBE. 

Submissions of the Respondent

The Bar Council of India has submitted in the counter affidavit that the decision was taken only after a thorough discussion on mass cheating. They also contended that the candidates of these centres would be allowed to re-appear for the exam without any fee. They submitted that the ground for the notification is ‘mass cheating’. the ruling in Bihar School Examination case was brought to the notice. it was held in that case that if an exam as a whole was cancelled, it is not necessary to give an opportunity to each candidate to represent their case. The bar council opposed the plea saying there were sufficient grounds given the mal-practises adopted at these centres. Thus the allegation of absence of valid ground is incorrect.

On July 30, Bar Council postponed the examination indefinitely. The petitioner stated that this postponement has caused prejudice to lawyers like him. This is because they are prevented from filing vakalat. Also they are prevented from using welfare funds announced by the state government. The petition moved through Solomon Raju on Aug 6, against the notification dated 30th July, also highlighted the Covid situation. It stated it would be inadvisable to conduct AIBE in times like this where Covid cases are at a peak. 

This plea before the Andhra Pradesh High Court awaits a decision amidst delay due to pandemic.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -