M MUNIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are disposed of by a common order since certain identical points arise for consideration in all these petitions.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 9478 of 1988, petitioners who are students and have passed the S.S.L.C. Examination have challenged the impugned order in so far as it relates to the minimum qualification prescribed by the State Government for admission to the Teachers Certificate Higher Course (in short TCH course). In Writ Petitions Nos. 9461 and 9462 of 1988, petitioners are unaided institutions and they have challenged the impugned order in so far as it relates to the minimum qualification prescribed for the students who are desirous of joining the TCH course. In Writ Petitions Nos. 11287 to 11291 of 1988, petitioners are unaided institutions and they have challenged the impugned orders in so far as they relate to the minimum qualification prescribed for admission to the TCH course and also the allocation of seats to the said course. Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11837 have challenged the impugned orders in so far as they relate to the allocation of seats to the TCH course. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12292 of 1988 claim to be a federation of Private Educational Managements and they have challenged the impugned orders in so far as they relate to the minimum qualification prescribed for admission to the TCH course and also to the allocation of seats to the TCH course. In Writ Petition No. 12210 of 1988 petitioner is a registered Educational Society and it has challenged the impugned orders in so far as they relate to the minimum qualification prescribed by the State Government for admission to the TCH course. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 11716 of 1988 is a trust established for the purpose of promoting education, particularly the Physical education. It has challenged the impugned orders in so far as they relate to the minimum qualification prescribed by the State Government for admission to the TCH course and also to the allocation of seats to the said course.

(3.) In all these petitions the common questions that arise for consideration are : 1) Whether the impugned orders violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India? 2) Whether these impugned orders impose a reasonable restrictions on the petitioners' fundamental rights? 3) Are the petitioners entitled to plead that the impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice? 4) Are the petitioners justified in contending that the impugned orders are arbitrary and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 5) Are the impugned orders violative of the provisions of Article 19(6) of the Constitution inasmuch as these orders are executive orders and accordingly, the State Government is not competent to issue such orders but they could have curtailed the rights of the petitioners by recourse to the legislative power in the form of suitable enactment?