The State government’s decision to conduct board exams for classes 5 and 8 is a blatant violation of the provisions of the Right of Children for Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, it was argued before the High Court of Karnataka on Friday on behalf of the RTE Students’ Parents’ Association, Bengaluru.
The introduction of board exams is also contrary to the object of the national curriculum framework and education policy, it was argued on behalf of the association.
The arguments were made before a Division Bench comprising Justice K. Somashekar and Justice Rajesh Rai K. during the hearing on the appeal filed by the State government challenging the Single Judge’s March 6 order of quashing the decision of holding board exams for classes 5, 8, 9, and 11 without framing the rules for this purpose.
What association said
Also, it was contended on behalf of the association that involvement and prior consultation with all stakeholders — the schools, teachers and parents — is an essential requirement during the overhaul of the examination/assessment system for any class as they represent the interests of the students. The parents, in particular, have the fundamental right to have their say in such matters, the association has argued.
The apex court has ruled that changes in any examination system, including competitive examinations such as JEE and NEET, cannot be introduced during the midway of an academic year, it was contended.
The State government has no power to act contrary to the provisions of the RTE Act and the conduct of the State government in holding board exams is nothing but “a fraud playing on the RTE Act”, it was argued on behalf of the association while referring to Section 30 of the RTE Act.
Not beyond March 18
Meanwhile, the Bench expressed its displeasure over 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 — for seeking adjournment till March 18 to enable their senior to come and argue the matter. The Bench made it clear to them that it would conclude hearing on the appeal if their senior fail to make arguments on March 18.
