Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 42046
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K.SOMASHEKAR, RAJESH RAI K, JJ
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
REGISTERED UNAIDED PRIVATE SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2024(EDN-RES) | WRIT APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2024(EDN-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, SMT.MAMATHA SHETTY
For the Respondents: SRI.K.V.DHANANJAY, SRI.PRITHVEESH M.K, SMT.SWATHY, SRI.VELAN
The State's authority to issue notifications for student assessments under the KEA does not violate the RTE Act, as these assessments are not categorized as board examinations.
Headnote:(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - Sections 16 and 30(1) - Karnataka Education Act, 1983 - Section 22(1) - Notifications to conduct assessments for classes 5, 8, and 9 quashed by learned Single Judge citing violations of RTE Act - State's appeal against quashing of notifications on grounds of authority under KEA - Notifications deemed not to constitute board examinations - State empowered to appoint competent authority for examinations. (Paras 12, 32, 39, and 52)
(B) The learned Single Judge ordered quashing due to lack of prior consultation with stakeholders, emphasizing the necessity to ensure pupils are not unjustly burdened or unprepared for assessments. (Paras 19, 26, 36, and 52)
Facts of the case:
The State had issued notifications allowing the Karnataka State Education and Assessment Board to conduct certain assessments for students without prior consultation with stakeholders, resulting in challenges from private school associations and concerned parents.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled the notifications did not violate the RTE Act as they were not considered board exams, affirming the State's authority to oversee assessments for various grades.
Issues: The key issues were the legality of the notifications in relation to the RTE Act and whether prior publication and stakeholder consultation were necessary.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the notifications, while issued under the KEA, did not inherently conflict with RTE mandates and confirmed the State's ability to manage examinations.
Result: Appeals allowed; notifications reinstated with a directive for future consultations with stakeholders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and previous orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments concerning validity of notifications. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. state’s right to conduct examinations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. parental rights in children’s education. (Para 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 25) |
| 5. requirement of prior publication in rule-making. (Para 26 , 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. classification of assessment versus board exams. (Para 32 , 33 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. conclusion and order for consultation. (Para 52) |
JUDGMENT
These intra-Court appeals arising out of the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.26489/2023 C/w W.P.No.24745/2023, wherein the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petitions by quashing the impugned Notification No.EP 209 SLB 2023 dated 06.10.2023 and Notification No.EP 209 SLB 2023 dated 09.10.2023. Challenging the same, the appellants, who are the respondents-State Government Authorities before the learned Single Judge, are before this Court invoking the provisions of Section 4 of the High Court of Karnataka Act, 1961.
2. The facts that are apposite to consider the case on hand as borne out from the pleadings are as follows.
In the year 2022, the appellants-State Government came up with the Circular dated 12.12.2022 bearing No.E-870867- DPII-CPIOC7-2(PLM)/3/2022 and pursuant to the same, another Official Memorandum dated 28.04.2022 regarding a module of assessment in a manner conducting the examination by way of three Formative Assessments Examination (for short 'FA') and two Summative Assessments Examination (for short 'SA') came to be issued directing all the schools in the State of Karnataka to follow the same method in evaluating the students to allow them to proceed to the next grades. It is in this scenario, another Notification dated 06.10.2023 came to be issued by appellant No.1 herein, wherein appellant No.1 appointed the Karnataka State Education and Assessment Board (for short 'KSEAB') as the "Competent Authority" to conduct the Summative Assesment-2 (for brevity 'SA-2') of the Schools under the purview of the KARNATAKA EDUCATION ACT , 1983 (for short 'KEA'). Further, on 09.10.2023, another notification came to be issued by appellant No.1, whereby the power to conduct SA-2 to 5th, 8th, 9th and annual examination for 11th standard students was given to the KSEAB. In this background, by another proceedings and order dated 16.11.2023, appellant No.1 also issued instructions to the Competent Authority clarifying the manner in which the assessment to be conducted for the students therein.
3. Under this coveted background, aggrieved by the Notifications dated 06.10.2023 and 09.10.2023, respondent No.1-private aided schools approached the learned Single Judge on the premises of it being in violation of the provisions of Sections 16 and 30 (1) of the RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO FREE AND COMPULSORY EDUCATION ACT , 2009 (for short 'RTE Act'). Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 06.03.2024, allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein and consequently, quashed these impugned Notifications. Hence, the appellants, who are the petitioners before the learned Single Judge, are before this Court.
4. We have heard the learned AAG Sri Vikram Huilgol for the appellants-State, learned counsel Sri K.V.Dhananjay for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri A.Valen for the impleading applicant/respondent No.6 in W.A.No.379/2024, learned counsel Sri M.K.Prithveesh for impleading applicants/respondent No.2 to 5 in W.A.No.379/2024 and perused the material available on record.
5. Learned AAG Sri Vikram Huilgol for the appellants- State contends that, respondent No.1 has challenged the Notifications dated 06.10.2023 and 09.10.2023 before the learned Single Judge as the same are in the teeth of Sections 16 and 30 (1) of the RTE Act. He would contend that the respondents have not challenged the Notification dated 16.11.2023, which empowered the KSEAB to conduct SA-2 and also the prescribed mode
