Karnataka High Court upholds State decision to conduct 'Board Exams' for classes 5, 8, 9, 11

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court today upheld the State government's decision to hold "Board Exams" for students of classes 5, 8, 9 and 11 in schools affiliated to the Karnataka State Education Assessment Board (KSEAB). .A Bench of Justices K Somashekar and Rajesh Rai K set aside a March 6 single-judge decision that had struck down certain notifications passed last year which had paved the way for the conduct of these exams. "Appeals are allowed. Order dated 6.03.2024 passed by learned single judge ...is hereby set aside. Appellant State is directed to hold remaining assessment for classes 5, 8, 9, 11 and resume the process now stalled for 11th standard," the Court said..Effectively, the Court has told the State to resume and complete the assessment process which had been stalled following a March 12 Supreme Court order of stay. .Notably, the Court also said that these exams cannot be viewed as "Board Exams" in the conventional sense. Three questions had been framed by the Bench to decide on the matter: (i) Whether KSEAB exams can be called as Board Exams? (ii) Whether the State's notifications of 2023 went against Sections 16 and 32 of the Right to Education Act (RTE Act)? and (iii) Whether notifications issued for the conduct of the exams under Section 22 of the Karnataka Education Act requires prior publication and whether State actions violated Section 145 of the Karnataka Education Act?The Court held that the State, being the appropriate authority, has only prescribed guidelines for conduct of the exams and nothing else in the notifications issued last year (which were earlier struck down by the single-judge). Therefore, it answered questions (i) and (ii) in the negative..Notably, during final submissions in the matter made earlier this week, the State government had contended that the exams sought to be conducted by the KSEAB were not like the "Board Exams" held for 10th or 12th class students. Additional Advocate General Vikram Huilgol had highlighted that it was only that the KSEAB is setting the paper for the second summative assessment (SA2) of students in classes 5, 8, 9 and 11. This was part of their continuous assessment, he said.He added that these exams are not standalone assessments taken in separate exam centers. Rather, they are taken by the students in their own classrooms. The only difference is that the KSEB is setting the paper to keep a check on whether any corrective measures were required if any school underperforms.There is neither any question of detaining a child nor is there any tinkering with the syllabus already followed by the students, he argued. There is also no separate enrollment process or exam fee charged, he said..The Court today appears to have agreed with the stance that KSEAB exams are, therefore, not "Board Exams" in the conventional sense.The Court observed that there is nothing to show that the KSEAB exams would entail additional pressure on a student, since the only distinguishing feature is that the question papers will be set by the KSEAB.To consider an exam a "Board Exam", the primary requirement is that the exam results would be publicly displayed, that the paper would be graded by an external evaluator and that a student may be detained if they fail the exam, the Court added. The Court went on to observe that these aspects were missing when it came to the KSEAB exams. Therefore, it concluded that the KSEAB exams are not "Board Exams" in the conventional sense..However, before parting with the matter, the Court ordered the State to consult stakeholders before notifying any such assessment in the upcoming academic years. "We are not in concurrence with the arguments advanced by the respondents that conducting examination would hamper the well being of the children and also hamper the growth of children. But we are of the opinion, the adoption of this method would prepare the students to the upcoming board examination in future years and also that they will be well equipped to face the actual board exam," the judgment stated. .The arguments for the original writ petitioners (private unaided schools who were respondents in the appeal) were led by Advocate KV Dhananjay. Advocate A Velan appeared for a parent-student association. Advocate Prithveesh MK appeared for an intervenor who supported the State's stance..[Read Judgment]