G N EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) since the question of law involved in all these petitions is the same and grievances of the petitioners are similar in nature all these petitions can .conveniently be disposed of by passing a common order.

(2.) all these petitions for the sake of convenience can be divided into three types on the basis of the reliefs claimed. The first type of cases will be those where for the first time the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to grant permission to these petitioners to start english medium- or urdu medium schools on the ground that they are religious or linguistic minority. According to them right to start educational institutions arc guaranteed to such protected class in view of articles 29, 30 and 350-a of the Constitution of india. The second type of writ petitions are those where the petitions filed by cither non-religious or non-linguistic minority institutions, seeking permission to start educational institutions with medium of instruction in english. But the reason for them to seek for such a permission is, when protection can be granted to those belonging to religious and linguistic minorities why not the same relief be granted to them when it is shown the existence of need to have such school in the area sought. The third type of cases are two types namely:

(3.) when the Constitution envisages that there shall not be any discrimination inaccording permission to start school or teaching children in any one of the national languages including english, it is most unjust and unconstitutional on the part of the government or the authorities concerned to deprive such of the students to seek education in english medium right from elementary school, is the line-of arguments of some of the advocates who are appearing for petitioners namely, sriyuths: M.C. Narasimhan, K.R.D. Karanth, V. Mohanrangam, N.B. Bhat, M. Shivappa, Umesh Malimath, Mahantesh Hosmath and few other advocates. Their attack is almost identical. Their arguments on the questions involved are same. The authorities which they relied upon are also same. According to them, in case of institutions which fall under first category in view of articles 29, 30 and 350-a such institutions need not seek permission to start school where education is to be taught in their mother tongue. As a matter of right, they could start schools, of course, recognition is to be accorded by the department concerned taking into consideration whether establishment and other requirements of the institution are in conformity with rules 11 and 12 of grant-in-aid code. Their argument is that when the Constitution has conferred a special benefit on these religious and linguistic minority institutions it cannot be said that it is discriminatory and thus violative of article 14 of the constitution. To clear the doubt, they felt that it is desirable to bear in mind certain articles of the constitution, particularly, articles 14, 29, 30, 45 and 350-a read with rules 11 and 12 of the grant-in-aid code rules.