Work unitedly to realise Abdul Kalam’s dream of developed India: Modi

New Delhi, Jun 25: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Centre and the CBSE to issue fresh notification in connection with Class 12 exams, clarifying the option between internal assessment and exams later.

The observation from the top court after it was informed that the CBSE has decided to cancel the remaining board exams for Class 10 and Class 12.

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjiv Khanna asked the Centre to clarify the issue of taking the option between internal assessment and exams later.

"Clarify the date of results," said the bench, noting that the CBSE will have to submit a fresh draft notification cancelling class 12 Board exams and affidavit on Friday morning, before the top court continues to hear the matter again at 10.30 a.m.

The apex court also sought clarity on the beginning of the new academic year.

It told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, that the CBSE is willing to conduct exams when the situation is conducive, but this may vary from state to state. "Will the decision be taken by a central authority or will the state government take the decision? How are you going to deal with that situation?"

Mehta replied that the decision must be taken according to the situation. To this, the bench said should not the solution be pan-India?

"You have not said when you will decide on this issue, and when you will take stock of these things. Some time frame will have to be given," noted the bench.

Continuing its queries, the bench said: "What about state regional board exams... the CBSE does not hold all the exams. The state Board is also there."

Mehta replied that the instructions from the controller of examinations are that exams are controlled centrally. "State boards assist the CBSE," he replied.

The bench observed that the government should modify the draft notification and include the state board issue. "Clear the stand that decision will be taken at the central level and not at the state level... other courses will have to be delayed till CBSE exam results come out," it said.

Mehta replied the assessment results will be published now, and if a student wants to opt to give the exam, then that will be conducted later. The top court asked Mehta to bring this on record and redraft the notification.

New Delhi, Jun 24: A litre of diesel on Wednesday was more expensive than a litre of petrol after the price of the former was hiked by 48 paise on the 18th successive day of fuel price revisions. While petrol price remained unchanged for the first time since June 7, diesel prices maintained upward trajectory to touch new highs.

It is for the first time in Delhi that diesel has become more expensive than petrol. A litre of the fuel now costs ₹79.88 as against ₹79.76 for a litre of petrol, as per a report in news agency ANI.

While surging fuel prices may generate much-needed revenue for governments, it would also have a detrimental impact on household budgets. The spike in diesel prices also has a wider impact on the transport and agricultural sectors which are largely dependent on the fuel.

The widest gap between the prices of the two fuels was on June 18 of 2012 when a litre of petrol was at ₹71.16 in Delhi while diesel was at ₹40.91. On June 28, the gap between the two fuels was 31.17 per litre in Mumbai. Around that time, there was a spurt in sales of diesel passenger vehicles while demand for such vehicles has come down significantly in current times. This has also led many manufacturers to ditch diesel engines completely.

The current trend of fuel price hikes are unlikely to do demand for petrol vehicles much good either.

Daily price revisions of the two fuel had been temporarily halted for 83 days till it was resumed on June 7.

India's demand for fuel doubled in May and has been steadily rising in June with the easing of restrictions. Indian refineries have already scaled up crude processing with Indian Oil Corp, the country's top refiner, looking to operate its plants at about 90% capacity in June.

The rising fuel prices, however, have resulted in political uproar with Congress leading the charge against the central government and accusing it of penalising consumers by imposing high taxes. A demand for including fuel prices under Goods and Services Tax (GST) has also been renewed by many but it is highly unlikely that it would happen. With oil companies looking to cut back on their previous loses and governments - central as well as states - aiming to generate revenue after tumultous weeks of lockdown, fuel price hikes are likely to stay till at least the end of June.

Chennai, Mar 3: The Madras High Court has ruled that if a working woman gives birth to a child in the second delivery after twins in the first, she is not entitled to maternity benefits as it should be treated as third child.

"As per existing rules, a woman can avail such benefits only for her first two deliveries. Even otherwise it is debatable as to whether the delivery is not a second delivery but a third one, in as much as ordinarily when twins are born they are delivered one after another, and their age and their inter-se elderly status is also determined by virtue of the gap of time between their arrivals, which amounts to two deliveries and not one simultaneous act," the court said.

The first bench, comprising Chief Justice A P Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad stated this while allowing the appeal from Ministry of Home Affairs.

It set aside the order June 18 2019 order of a single Judge, who extended 180 days of maternity leave and other benefits to a woman member of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under the rules governing the Tamil Nadu government servants.

The issue pertains to an appeal moved by the ministry, which contended that the leave claim is by a member of CISF to whom the maternity rules of Tamil Nadu would not apply.

She would be covered by the maternity benefits as provided under the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, the ministry said.

When the appeal came up for hearing, the bench said it found that a second delivery, which, in the present case, resulted in a third child, cannot be interpreted so as to add to the mathematical precision that is defined in the rules.

The admissibility of benefits would be limited if the claimant has not more than two children, the bench said "This fact therefore changes the entire nature of the relief which is sought for by the woman petitioner, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the single judge", the bench said.