(1.) The petitioner is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is alleged that it was founded by people of Kerala who" speak Malayalam as their mother tongue and that all its members and Office bearers on the Board of Management of the Society belong to this linguistic group which constitutes a linguistic minority in the City of Bangalore particularly, and generally in the rest of the State of Karnataka. The Society, according to the assertion made was founded in the month of March, 1978, with the sole object of serving the interest of the linguistic group, the main object being to promote the educational cultural and other interests of the aforesaid group residing in the State of Karnataka, particularly in the City of Bangalore, In support of this assertion, the pertitioner-Society has produced the memorandum of association and bye-laws which has been certified by the Registrar of Societies in Karnataka on 17-3-1978 in proof of its due formation. The copy of the memorandum of association and bye-laws is annexed ta the petition as Exhibit-B. The founders of the Society felt the need to start a Teachers Training Institute in order to serve the interest of their linguistic minority students who were poor down-trodden and who could not Set admitted to other Teachers Training Institutes in the City inasmuch as the said other Institutes would demand heavy capitation fees or donation for admission into those Institutes. The petitioner-Society, therefore, started what is styled as 'Maxmuller Teachers Training Institute at a suitable well equipped building at Neelakanta, Mudaliar Road, Murphy Town Ulsoor, Bangalore City. The said building is stated to be taken on lease. It is further averred by the Society that they have equipped the aforementioned Institute with a laboratory at a huge cost. The said Training Institute is owned by the Society to serve the linguistic minority to which reference has already been made. It is further averred by the Society that the Teachers Course Higher Examination, conducted by the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board is for a duration of two years consisting 1st and 2nd year courses. At the end of each year, a public examination is held by the 3rd respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Board) The successful candidates are issued certificates known as T.C. H.' certificates which make them eligible for appointment to the posts of primary school teachers.
(2.) It has been averred that on 25-6-1978 an application was given for recognition of the Teachers Training Institute to respondent by the petitioner-Society. In the said representation, the Society agreed to adhere to the standards prescribed by the Department under 'Uniform Grant-in-Aid Code' for primary school teachers training Institute in the. State of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the) Code) . The Society further undertook to maintain strict discipline and to start the course to serve the linguistic minority, speaking Malayalam. It is further averred that 2nd respondent-Additional Director of Public Instruction, was convinced of the Desire and needs of the Society and was of the view that the Society was competent to start the school when the matter was discussed with him. The petitioner-Society has further averred that, at that discussion it was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that the Society was guaranteed its fundamental right to start the institution under Art. 30 of the Constitution of India. It is also averred that the second respondent assured that necessary recognition would be given and the course may be started. The application far recognition has been produced as Exhibit-C to the petition. On the oral assurance of 2nd respondent, the Society received the applications, from intending candidates and began to conduct classes in the Teachers Course Higher Examination (hereinafter referred to as the Course). The classes were commenced from 1-7-1978. In that behalf, highly qualified; teachers to train the students were, appointed. The rules contained in the Code for primary school teachers in the State of Karnataka were also observed. The Society has alleged that there has been no breach of any of the provisions of the Code aforementioned and the institution has maintained a high standard. The institution had 136 students in the first year course on its roll for the academic year 1978-79, of which, 134 students spoke Malayalam and two other students Tamil or Telugu as their mother-tongue
(3.) No written orders were passed by the 2nd respondent on the application for recognition as per Ext-C to the petitioner. However a notice was published in Deccan Herald bearing date 26-7-1978 stating that the Institute of the Society had not been recognised by the Department. On the said publication, a representation was given by the Society to 2nd respondent by registered post reiterating their earlier request for recognition even though a similar representation was given bearing the date 24-7-1978 before publication of the notice by 2nd respondent. In the said representation, it was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent that Two Train ing Institutes imparting instructions in the Course had been closed down and there fore recognition should be accorded to the petitioner-Society. However, even without reference to the letter of representation, but in response to the original request of the Society for recognition, by a letter dated 24-7-1978 a true copy of which is annexed to the petition as Ext-F, the 2nd respondent intimated that there were more number of Training Institutes in the State than required and therefore the policy of the Government was not to permit starting any more teachers training Institutes. The Society has averred that this was an irreleyent consideration for not according the recognition to its institution, over-looking its fundamental right to start the same and also the said Policy of the Government was not true inasmuch as recognition was accorded on 31-8-1978 to one. Venkatesha Education Society to start a teachers training Institute. A copy of that sanction or approval of the Government has been produced as Ext.-G to the petition. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant recognition, as pep Ext-F, on the ground that there was no further need for additional Teachers Training Institute in the State, the ptitioner-Society has approached this Court under Art. 226(1) (a) (b) and (c) of the Constitution for redressal, inter alia, contending that the aforementioned failure to give recognition was violative of the fundamental right of the petitionerSociety guaranteed under Art. 30(1) of the Constitution and further that refusal of recognition was on irrelevant and non-existent grounds.