NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday refuses urgent hearing on a plea against board examination for students of standards V and VIII th in schools affiliated to the Karnataka state board.
A counsel on behalf of Associations of Unaided Private Schools mentioned the matter before a bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala.
He said since the examinations are scheduled to begin on March 27, the matter should be taken up on earlier date.
The court, however, declined the plea, saying the High Court knows what is the best in the interest of the state and posted the matter for consideration on March 27 only.
On March 15, a division bench had stayed the single judge bench order on March 10, which had quashed the Government circulars on the ground that they were issued in violation of the procedure under the Right of Children To Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
The Unaided Recognised Schools, the Registered Unaided Private Schools’ Management Association Karnataka and Karnataka Unaided Schools Management Association had questioned validity of the government circulars of December 12, 2022, December 13, 2022 and January 4, 2023 contending that changing the assessment method by conducting State-level ‘board exams’ instead of school-level assessment will adversely impact the students and the teachers.
Last week, the High Court had allowed the state government to go ahead with the new method of assessment similar to board exams for classes V and VIII and to reschedule the examinations from March 27.
A special division bench comprising Justices G Narendar and Ashok Kinagi, in an interim order, directed the government and schools to inform students that no student will be detained based on performance.
The division bench earlier had directed the government to keep the March 13 and 14 examinations in abeyance in view of the writ appeal filed by the government.
The appeal was filed challenging the March 10 single-judge bench order quashing circulars on the new assessment method.
The division bench had stayed the order of the single-judge bench and directed that evaluation should not be in public domain.
