Justify overruling Maharashtra govt’s decision over SSC exams, HC asks petitioner

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the petitioner who challenged the state government’s decision to cancel the SSC board exams for the academic year 2020-21 to provide substantial grounds for them to pass orders contrary to the decision of the state government

The Bombay high court (HC) has asked the petitioner who challenged the state government’s decision to cancel the SSC board exams for the academic year 2020-21 to provide substantial grounds for them to pass orders contrary to the decision of the state government. The court also sought to know how it could pass such orders while there was an apprehension that the third Covid wave would affect children in the age group of 10-18 years.

HT Image

After the petitioner informed the court that he wanted to challenge the government resolution which announced the evaluation system for Class 10 students in lieu of exams not being held, the court directed the petitioner to amend the petition and include the challenge in it.

The division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni, while hearing the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Pune resident and retired professor Dhananjay Kulkarni, was informed by advocate Uday Warunjikar that as the situation had improved there was no harm in conducting the SSC board exams. He further stated that the formula for evaluation and assessment of Class 10 students which were announced by the state government on May 28 was not acceptable and hence wanted to challenge it too.

On May 28, the state government had announced that students would be evaluated through an internal assessment formula for the academic year 2020-21 and class 11 admissions would be conducted through an optional Common Entrance Test (CET) based on class 10 syllabus and those unwilling to appear for CET would be admitted based on their Class 10 marks.

The additional affidavit filed by the state government on Monday in response to the PIL stated that the SSC exams could not be compared with HSC exams as the latter were more important milestones for students. The affidavit justified the decision to cancel the Class 10 exams while postponing Class 12 exams by stating that students appearing for Class 12 exams were more mature, independent, socially aware, bodily and mentally fit.

The affidavit also referred to the threat of a third wave in July or August which medical experts have said could affect children between 10 and 18 years of age and said that in light of that decisions pertaining to exams on a large scale would have to be taken with due consideration.

After hearing the submissions the bench asked the petitioner, “You want exams to be held. Do you think the Covid situation this year is better than last year? The state has said that the current environment is not conducive for conducting examinations. Can we substitute the decision saying that the situation is fine and say that it is conducive to hold exams?”

While setting aside the argument of Warunjikar that the situation had improved the bench said, “We are making our prima facie observations. There are certain decisions of the state government that may not be fair but we are also aware of how much to extend our powers.” The bench then allowed the petitioner to amend the petition to challenge the newly announced evaluation formula for Class 10 students and said that by the next hearing on June 3 the Supreme Court would have passed orders pertaining to cancellation of Class 12 exams as well.