VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal was the petitioner in writ petition No. 1302 of 2000. In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the Order dated 14th August 2003 made by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. In the writ petition the appellant had called in question the constitutional validity of Rules 12,14 and 15 of the karnataka Educational Institutions (Classifications, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula etc.) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). The learned single Judge, on consideration of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant challenging the correctness of the Rules referred to above, took the view that the Rules were framed by the State in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 145 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). He also took the view that one of the purpose of the Act under Section 3 (2) (j) of the Act being to establish pre-primary schools, Rules 12,14 and 15 of the rules as applicable to the primary courses, cannot be said to be not related to regulation of primary courses. He also negatived the contention of the petitioners that the said Rules are liable to be struck down on the ground that they are either arbitrary or unreasonable or violative of the rights guaranteed to the appellant under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said order, as noticed by us earlier, this appeal is filed.

(2.) SRI Basavaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenging the correctness of the impugned order, made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that the Rules in question being ultra vires of the provisions of the Act, the learned single Judge ought to have struck down by the impugned Rules. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel pointed out that the provisions of the Act are not made applicable to the play-homes, kindergartens and pre-primary institutions. In this connection he drew our attention to Section 2 (6), 2 (26) and 2 (27) of the Act wherein 'child', 'primary school', 'private educational institution' have been respectively defined. It is his submission that the view taken by the learned single Judge that Section 3 of the Act which provides for framing of the Regulations by the State empowers the State to promote and establish institutions or centres of primary education, adult education and non-formal education, cannot be construed to reserving power on the State to frame the Rules in question. Therefore, he submits that the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge that the Rules in question are ultra-vires of the Act, is unsustainable in law. Secondly, he submitted that arbitrary and uncontrollable powers are given under Rules 12,14 and 15 of the Act and it empowers the State to interfere with the management of play-homes, kindergartens and nurseries and therefore, the said Rules are required to be struck down as being highly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed to the appellant.

(3.) HOWEVER, Sri Shivakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate while strongly supporting the order passed by the learned single Judge, pointed out that the impugned Rules were framed keeping in mind the interest of the tiny children who attend the play-homes, kindergartens and nurseries, etc. In this connection, he brought to our notice the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, AIR1988 SC 1782 , JT1988 (3 )SC 186 , 1988 (2 )SCALE325 , 1988 Supp (1 )SCC734 , [1988 ]supp1 SCR755 , 1988 (2 )UJ404 (SC ) wherein the Supreme Court has emphasised the care that is required to be taken by the care-homes where the children and women are housed. Therefore, he submitted that this appeal is liable to be dismissed as one devoid of any merit.