The daughter of a state electricity board worker applied for compassionate appointment after her father died. Her application was rejected on the ground that she had not turned 18 yet. She applied again when she turned 18. But her application was rejected because the authorities said that she had failed to apply within three years of her father’s death (ie within the time specified in the statute). She filed a writ petition. The Madras High Court held that her application for the second time could not be rejected. In fact, the court said, it should not be treated as a fresh application, but as a continuation of the earlier one (Selvi R. Anbarasi vs Chief Engineer, Personnel, Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board).
The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected an application filed by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the payment of Rs 25,000 as litigation expenses because she had suppressed the fact that she had been working. In his objection petition, the husband said that his wife was earning around Rs 13-14,000 per month as a senior clerk in a cooperative bank. The wife did nothing to bring this to the court’s notice. The court said the wife had deliberately concealed the fact from it because she feared that her petition might get rejected (Harinder Jit Kaur vs Mahinder Paul Singh).
The Delhi High Court rejected the writ petition against a school filed by a student when he was denied admission to the science stream because he scored much less than 70 per cent in mathematics. He was allowed to take up commerce. The court held that the school was free to take such a decision. The court also noted that the school had to maintain its standard and also see to it that admitting a student to a stream he had no aptitude for did not cause any mental or physical harm to him (M.I. Hussain vs N. Singh and others).
SOLON
