SAMUEL JOSEPH PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a minor represented by his mother as guardian. He is a student of the 5th respondent School in Standard IX. By virtue of Ext. P1 the 4th respondent had accorded sanction to the petitioner to learn 'Additional English' under Part I and 'Special English' under Part II of the 1st language, instead of studying the language of Malayalam. It is evident that Ext. P1 was issued on the basis of a request made by the guardian to exempt the student from studying the regional language, because the student had not studied Malayalam during the course of his earlier studies. On the basis of Ext. P1 the petitioner pursued his studies from Standard V to IX, without studying the language of Malayalam. In May 2012 the 2nd respondent had issued Ext. P2 circular, on the basis of a Government Order, GO (P) No. 183/11/G. Edn. dated 01/09/2011. In Ext. P2 circular direction was issued to all the schools within the State, on the basis of the Government Order referred above, to teach Malayalam as first language, in Clause 6 of Ext. P2 it is stated that, examination in the language of Malayalam is made compulsory in Standard VIII, IX, X from the academic years, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. It is further mentioned that the schools which continues 'Special English' should stop teaching the said language within 3 years, and instead should teach Malayalam. On the basis of Ext. P2, the 5th respondent had submitted Ext. P3 application before the 4th respondent seeking exemption with respect to the petitioner. But no order of exemption was issued on the basis of Ext. P3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the petitioner is seeking to quash Ext. P2 and also seeking declaration that the petitioner is entitled to complete his studies up to Standard X, on the basis of the exemption already granted under Ext. P1.

(2.) In a statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent it is mentioned that Ext. P2 circular was issued with a view to implement GO (P) No. 183/11, through which the study of Malayalam is insisted compulsory in all the schools within the State. According to the 3rd respondent, Ext. P1 exemption was granted only with respect to the Vth Standard and thereafter no exemption was granted to the petitioner from studying the language of Malayalam. The Government Order in question stipulates that, all the Schools functioning within the State, even affiliated to CBSE/ICSE, should take necessary steps to teach Malayalam compulsorily. The 3rd respondent is also relying on an earlier circular issued in the year 2009, copy of which is produced as Annexure-R3(a) in order to content that the exemption was not continuing. It is mentioned therein that, the students coming from other State/countries joining in Standard V to VII, who had not studied any one of the regional languages in the lower primary classes, will be allowed exemption on a temporary basis from year to year. According to the 3rd respondent Ext. P1 exemption was granted only on the basis of Annexure-R3(a) circular and it was granted only to the extent of exempting the student from studying the language of Malayalam only in Vth Standard. It is alleged that the petitioner had failed to obtain similar exemptions with respect to any further classes.

(3.) It remains undisputed that the petitioner was exempted by virtue of Ext. P1 from studying the language of Malayalam, instead he was permitted to learn 'Additional English' and 'Special English'. Ext. P1 was issued in the year 2009, when the petitioner was studying in Vth standard in the 5th respondent School. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext. P1 does not indicate anything to the effect that the exemption was confined only with respect to standard V or that the exemption was granted specifically for any particular academic year. Nor it mention anything about Ext. R3(a) circular or about any other Government Order or circular. It is true that Clause 2 contained in Annexure-R3(a) stipulates that temporary exemption can be granted for one year with respect to students who joins in Standard V to VII, on definite condition that the pupil should learn the language of Malayalam in the class in which he is joining. It is evident that the 4th respondent has not prescribed any such condition in Ext. P1, with respect to learning of the regional language in the class in which the petitioner was admitted. There was no insistence with respect to attending annual examination of that year, as mentioned in Annexure-R3(a). Hence Ext. P1 exemption cannot be construed as one issued on the basis of Annexure-R3(a). Therefore the authorities of the 5th respondent School was perfectly justified in permitting the petitioner to continue on the basis of Ext. P1 from Standard V to IX without studying the language of Malayalam and without writing the annual examination on the said language in any of the classes from Standard V to IX.