KHAJA EDUCATION SOCIETY GULBARGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioners' learned Advocate and the learned Government Advocate at some length. The point involved in this petition is more or less similar to what has been earlier decided by this Court in some of the earlier petitions. The added factor in the petitioners favour as pointed out by their learned Counsel is that they are a minority institution and secondly that they are not in the category of institutions who are asking for grant-in-aid from the State Government. Under these circumstances, learned Counsel submits that assuming without admitting that the State Government has some power to impose conditions with regard to other categories of educational institutions that this will not hold good as far as the petitioners are concerned or for that matter the class of educational institutions to which the petitioners belong. The learned government Advocate has sought to submit that such a distinction cannot be made and that a policy decision of the government in such matters was applicable to all categories of institutions. This contention is fallacious because no such arbitrary formula can be pressed into operation more so when dealing with educational institutions where a distinction may have to be made between one school and the other depending on the special facts and circumstances.

(2.) THE solitary ground on which the respondents have refused to grant the petitioners the No-objection Certificate asked for by them is that in keeping with the State's language policy they contend that it is obligatory that the regional language must be the medium of instructions in Standards I to IV and since the petitioners have pointed out that in their school, for the reasons set out by them that the medium of instruction is other than the regional language, the No-objection Certificate has been withheld. This Court has had occasion to point out that as far as the entire category of minority institutions are concerned or for that matter, institutions which cater to separate linguistic groups or institutions which specifically cater to certain class of persons are concerned, that it is constitutionally not permissible to impose restrictions such as instances on the medium of instruction being the regional language at any level. This Court has had occasion to point out as in the present case that if the institution contends that it is catering to the children of Central government employees or persons whose jobs are transferable to different parts of the country, that it will be impossible for these students to continue with their education if they are forced to commence the education in the regional language with Kannada as a medium of instruction and thereafter change over, if they have to continue in another State. Instances were pointed out to this Court where it is also not academically desirable or feasible that the young children be forced to commence their education with the medium of instruction in the regional language and to thereafter shift over to some other language after a few classes as such, a process is extremely disruptive. The correct position is that the choice must be left to the students or parents as far as the medium of instruction is concerned. I do see justification since the institutions are often aided by the State Government and secondly, since they are situated in this State, for Kannada to be made a compulsory second language and this Court has also pointed out that in order to ensure that the language is not only studied but that it receives pride of place, that necessary steps may also be taken to ensure that the students seriously studied this language along with its literature and that they also do well in it. For this purpose, one of the possibilities is that it should not be made an option and a higher percentage be prescribed as far as the essential requirement of passing is concerned. Also, the schools be specially instructed to ensure that as far as the regional language is concerned, that special steps will be taken to ensure that it is properly imparted and seriously studied academically. It was equally necessary for this court to record that unless such a clear cut position is made available to the students, that they would run into serious handicaps in so far as students of each State would virtually be confined for the rest of their life only to that State as far as the employment is concerned and it would infringe upon the principles embodied in Article 301 of the Constitution. It is equally essential that students should have the requisite mobility of pursuing their higher studies or to undertake employment in whichever part of the country they so desire. The object is not to handicap a student by confining the student compulsorily to a particular State as has been indicated by the petitioners in other writ petitions. If the parents are required to move from one State to another, student should not be placed in a position at any stage whereby it would be impossible for them to continue with their education.

(3.) ON the material placed before the Court in the present petition, there appears to be no justification for the refusal of the no-objection Certificate. The petitioners' school is an established one. They have also relied on the fact that the necessary inspections have indicated that they conform to all the necessary requirements and that they are maintaining the requisite standards and under these circumstances, that it was only on the aforesaid ground that the No-objection Certificate was refused to them. It is in this background, since the solitary ground on which the respondents have refused the No-objection certificate is held to be totally unsustainable in law, that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.