Karnataka Class 5, 8, 9 Exams on Hold – The State government’s decision to hold board exams for classes 5 and 8 is a clear violation of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, according to an argument made before the High Court of Karnataka on Friday on behalf of the RTE Students’ Parents’ Association, Bengaluru. The implementation of the board exams also contradicts the objectives of the national curriculum framework and education strategy, according to the group. The arguments were made before a Division Bench of Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K. during the hearing on the State government’s appeal challenging the Single Judge’s March 6 order quashing the decision to hold board exams for classes 5, 8, 9, and 11 without first establishing the rules for this purpose.
Karnataka Class 5, 8, 9 Exams on Hold. What did the association say?
Furthermore, on behalf of the association, it was argued that involvement and prior consultation with all stakeholders — schools, teachers, and parents — is a must during the overhaul of any class’s examination/assessment system because they represent the students’ interests. The group has claimed that parents, in particular, have a fundamental right to participate in such affairs. The Supreme Court has decided that modifications to any examination system, including competitive exams like JEE and NEET, cannot be implemented in the middle of an academic year, it was argued. The State government has no authority to operate in violation of the terms of the RTE, and the State government’s action in organizing board exams is nothing more than “a fraud playing on the RTE Act,” according to the association’s argument, citing Section 30 of the Act.
Not beyond March 18:
Meanwhile, the Bench expressed displeasure with the conduct of two junior advocates representing the petitioner associations—Registered Unaided Private Schools’ Management Association-Karnataka, Bengaluru, and Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools, Bengaluru—who sought an adjournment until March 18 to allow their senior to appear and argue the case. The Bench informed them that if their superior did not provide arguments on March 18, the hearing on the appeal would be concluded.