SHARABHESHWARA VIDYA PEETHA BANDINOTU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions the petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant affiliation to the College of Education (B.Ed. College) for the academic year 1987-88. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of the State Government bearing No. Ed 122 UBC 87 dated 1-9-1987 produced as Annexure-G1 in Writ Petition No 18111 of 1987. Since a common point arises for consideration in these petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13227 of 1987 is an educational institution registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and it is not in dispute that this Association is a minority institution which enjoys the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. It is also not in dispute that this Association is running a number of educational institutions for catering to the needs of persons belonging to the minority community, namely, the Muslims of this State. Its grievance is that its application for establishing a Course in B.Ed., was rejected by the State Government and by such rejection the constitutional guarantee conferred on it under Article 30 of the Constitution is violated. The further grievance of this petitioner is that the impugned order rejecting its application is also opposed to the relevant provisions of Section 53 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act') since a duty is cast upon the State Government to grant the permission sought for once it is found that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements of the aforesaid provisions of that section. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18117 of 1987 is also a minority institution which enjoys the protection of Article 30 of the Constitution. It is running a number of educational institutions for the benefit of the members of Muslim minority community. It had also applied for permission to start a B.Ed. College. But, notwithstanding the favourable report of the Local Inquiry Committee which had gone into the matter, the State Government had refused to grant the permission sought for on the ground that the starting of B.Ed. College is not permitted as a matter of policy in view of the fact a large number of unemployed B.Ed, graduates have already passed out of other institutions and in view of the unemployment problem created by them, it is not proper for the petitioners to swell the number of unemployed graduates by starting the B.Ed. Course.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners in the first two Writ Petitions have relied on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court had interpreted the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution in so far as it relates to the rights and privileges of the minorities to establish educational institution of their choice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Scquiera and Mr. K.R.D.Karanth who have appeared in these cases have laid stress on the words 'of their choice' and contended that on the plain terms of Article 30 of the Constitution, the State Government, in the case of minority institutions cannot deny their right to start B.Ed. Course notwithstanding the fact that there are a number of graduates who had taken the B.Ed, degree and a number of them are without jobs. These economic considerations, that is to say, the unemployment problem of B.Ed, graduates is not a relevant consideration for the purpose of Article 30 of the Constitution. Mr. H.B.Datar, Senior Advocate, has supplemented their arguments.