<p>The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday allowed the state government to go ahead with the new method of assessment similar to board exams for classes 5 and 8 and to reschedule the examinations from March 27. </p>.<p>The interim order passed by a special division bench comprising Justices G Narendar and Ashok Kinagi directed the government and schools to inform students that no student will be detained based on performance. </p>.<p>The division bench earlier had directed the government to keep the March 13 and 14 examinations in abeyance considering the writ appeal filed by the government. </p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/child-custody-hc-rules-against-habeas-corpus-petition-by-germany-based-man-1200258.html" target="_blank">Child custody: HC rules against habeas corpus petition by Germany-based man</a></strong></p>.<p>The appeal was filed challenging the March 10 single-judge bench order quashing circulars on the new assessment method. </p>.<p>The division bench stayed the order of the single-judge bench and directed that evaluation should not be in public domain. The bench directed the government and all schools to inform students that they would not be detained in their respective classes based on performance in the new method of assessment. </p>.<p>During the hearing, K V Dhananjay, representing schools, argued that the circular violates the apex court judgement which states that minority institutions, aided or unaided, are outside the purview of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act. He said the circular overreaches the five-judge bench judgement of the apex court. </p>.<p>Additional Advocate General (AAG) Dhyan Chinnappa submitted affidavits stating that the questions in the proposed examination are all well within the prescribed syllabus. He argued that the apex court judgements on the RTE Act and minority institutions are only with regard to admission of students. He further submitted that with the new method, students are being tested on a uniform platform and it is only with the intention to assess them better. </p>.<p>A single judge bench had quashed the circulars pertaining to the new method of assessment holding that since an external agency in the form of KSEAB is coming into play for awarding 20 marks, the same is not contemplated under section 16 of the RTE Act. The Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools, RUPSA and others were the petitioners before the bench. </p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday allowed the state government to go ahead with the new method of assessment similar to board exams for classes 5 and 8 and to reschedule the examinations from March 27. </p>.<p>The interim order passed by a special division bench comprising Justices G Narendar and Ashok Kinagi directed the government and schools to inform students that no student will be detained based on performance. </p>.<p>The division bench earlier had directed the government to keep the March 13 and 14 examinations in abeyance considering the writ appeal filed by the government. </p>.<p><strong>Read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/city/top-bengaluru-stories/child-custody-hc-rules-against-habeas-corpus-petition-by-germany-based-man-1200258.html" target="_blank">Child custody: HC rules against habeas corpus petition by Germany-based man</a></strong></p>.<p>The appeal was filed challenging the March 10 single-judge bench order quashing circulars on the new assessment method. </p>.<p>The division bench stayed the order of the single-judge bench and directed that evaluation should not be in public domain. The bench directed the government and all schools to inform students that they would not be detained in their respective classes based on performance in the new method of assessment. </p>.<p>During the hearing, K V Dhananjay, representing schools, argued that the circular violates the apex court judgement which states that minority institutions, aided or unaided, are outside the purview of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act. He said the circular overreaches the five-judge bench judgement of the apex court. </p>.<p>Additional Advocate General (AAG) Dhyan Chinnappa submitted affidavits stating that the questions in the proposed examination are all well within the prescribed syllabus. He argued that the apex court judgements on the RTE Act and minority institutions are only with regard to admission of students. He further submitted that with the new method, students are being tested on a uniform platform and it is only with the intention to assess them better. </p>.<p>A single judge bench had quashed the circulars pertaining to the new method of assessment holding that since an external agency in the form of KSEAB is coming into play for awarding 20 marks, the same is not contemplated under section 16 of the RTE Act. The Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools, RUPSA and others were the petitioners before the bench. </p>