Have withdrawn notification on board exams for certain classes, Karnataka govt tells SC
New Delhi, Oct 15: The Karnataka government on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn its notification for conducting board examinations for students of classes 5, 8 and 9 in the current academic year in three rural districts.
A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by Organisation for Unaided Recognised Schools against the March 22, judgement of the Karnataka High Court.
The high court's division bench had permitted the state government to conduct the board exams for classes 5,8, 9 and 11 for the academic year 2023-24, overruling the March 6 order of a single judge's bench.
The single judge of the high court had nullified the state government's decision of October 2023 to hold board exams for these classes through the Karnataka State Examination and Assessment Board (KSEAB).
On April 8, the apex court stayed the high court division bench order and a April 6 order passed by the Karnataka School Quality Assessment and Accreditation Council "till further orders".
"This is a classic instance whereby no one else than the state government of Karnataka has sought to create a havoc and great distress not only amongst the students and their parents, but also amongst the teachers and the school managements in the state of Karnataka," the bench had then noted.
On Tuesday, the bench was informed by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta that the state government had withdrawn the notification.
"The withdrawal is done. It was a mistake on our part. I can assure my learned friend that even if exams were conducted, no results will be out...," he said.
The bench asked as to why the state government was bent on troubling the parents and children.
"There appears to be some ego problem on part of the state," Justice Trivedi remarked.
Mehta, however, clarified that there were some errors in grant of marks in the three districts, also becoming the reason behind the notification for conducting examinations.
The bench then posted the hearing after a week.
Advocates K V Dhananjay and A Velan, appearing for the petitioners, had previously informed the bench that despite the apex court's interim order staying the board examinations for classes 5, 8, 9 and 11, the state government conducted a half-yearly board exam for class 10 and a public exam for classes 8 and 9 in September.
The bench had asked the petitioner to file a contempt application against the state government for the alleged defiance of its order after the petitioner said the state government's move despite the stay order amounted to contempt.
The Karnataka high court division bench had interpreted the notifications issued by the state government regarding the board exams as guidelines rather than strict regulations, based on its understanding of the powers granted under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Karnataka HC upholds BDA's right to reject auction bids without explanation
Bengaluru, Oct 15: The Karnataka High Court has upheld the Bangalore Development Authority's (BDA) power to accept or reject bids in site auctions without providing reasons.
A division bench consisting of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice G Basavaraja concluded that the BDA's decision was lawful, aligning with the public interest and benefiting the general public.
The case arose after the BDA challenged a single-judge bench decision that quashed its rejection of a bid by a person named Sachin Nagarajappa.
The single judge had directed the BDA to confirm Nagarajappa's bid of Rs 1,54,000 per square metre, prompting the authority to appeal.
The BDA argued that its actions were consistent with the BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984, which empower the authority to accept or reject bids without offering explanations.
The BDA emphasised that public property auctions aim to secure the highest possible price, and it retains the right to cancel bids if the offered price is deemed inadequate.
The division bench referred to Rule 7 and the General Terms and Conditions of the BDA's e-Auction Notification, noting that the rule allows the authority to reject bids without providing reasons.
The court emphasised that the judiciary cannot interfere with the policy decisions made by the legislature or regulatory bodies unless there is evidence of illegality or misconduct.
Since the respondent did not challenge the constitutionality of Rule 7, and no evidence of fraud, collusion, or favoritism was presented, the court observed and concluded that the BDA's decision was neither arbitrary nor irrational.
It further noted that the property had been sold for over Rs 10 crore in a subsequent auction, benefiting the BDA.
The division bench set aside the single-judge bench ruling and upheld the BDA's decision to reject the bid.
