MURASOLI MARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal and writ petition raise a common question as to the validity of the President's Order dated 27-4-1960, a Circular of the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 3-3-1966, and the memoranda of the Railway Board as well as of the Posts and telegraphs, dated respectively 27-6-1969 and 19-6-1968. The writ petition out of which this writ appeal arises, was filed by a Member of the Parliament. Although alagiriswami, J. , held that the Circular orders contravened S. 3 (4) of the Official language (Amendment) Act, 1967, he dismissed the petition on the ground that it was for persons aggrieved to approach the court in a proper case, and not for persons like the petitioner who had no personal interest in the matter. The learned judge was further of opinion that he could not accept the contention that the presidential Order became void because no second Language Commission was appointed as contemplated by Article 344 of the Constitution, but he felt that quite possibly the petitioner may be entitled to maintain a writ of Mandamus for a direction to appoint a second Language Commission, and not for quashing the order and Circulars. The question of the locus standi of the petitioner, who is the appellant, did not very much figure before us because in the other petition, the petitioner as a non-Hindi knowing employee of the Posts and Telegraphs, is directly affected by the presidential Order and the Circulars, and, therefore, he is, beyond dispute, a person aggrieved. In fact, the learned Solicitor General for the Union of India mentioned at the outset of his argument that he did not propose to take shelter under the ground of maintainability of the appeal filed by the Member of the parliament, although just before he concluded his arguments, he made reference to R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, where it was held that a shareholder, a depositor or a director might not be entitled to move a petition for infringement of the rights of the company, unless by the action impugned by him, his rights were also infringed. We think that as the petitioner in W. P. 471 of 1970 is, by any test, a person aggrieved, the question of the locus standi of the appellant is of no importance or consequence.

(2.) IN the light of the report submitted by the Committee constituted in accordance with Article 344 (4) of the Constitution and in exercise of his powers under Article 344 (6), the President made an order on 27-4-1960, which inter alia directed, by clause 5: "training of administrative personnel in the Hindi Medium- (a) In accordance with the opinion expressed by the committee in-service training in Hindi may be made obligatory for Central Government employees who are aged less than 45 years. This will not apply to employees below class III grade, industrial establishment and work charged staff. In this scheme, no penalty should be imposed for failure to attain the prescribed standard by the due date. Facilities for Hindi training may continue to be provided free of costs to the trainees. " the rest of the clause is not material for our purposes. The background for this order is this. The first Language Commission noticed certain pre-requisites of a change over in the language for public administration, one of which was "training of Administrative personnel of different categories in appropriate standards of linguistic competence for the purpose of using the new linguistic medium with the requisite efficiency and facility of expression". As to this the Commission's recommendation is. "the present arrangements made by the Government of India for training their employees on a voluntary basis in Hindi language are reviewed. If experience shows that adequate results are not forthcoming under such optional arrangements, it would be legitimate and necessary for Government to impose, in pursuance of their language policy, the obligatory requirement on Government servants to qualify themselves in hindi within a reasonable period, to the extent requisite for the discharge of their duties".

(3.) ON this, the Committee was of opinion-"government may prescribe obligatory requirements on Government servants to qualify themselves in Hindi". When the Language commission which was appointed in June 1955 was on its job, certain suggestions for the gradual replacement of English by Hindi appear to have been discussed at an inter-departmental meeting in April 1954, and decisions arrived at. That resulted in the President's Order called "the constitution (Hindi Language for Official Purposes Order, 1955, Clause 2 of this order said that the official purposes of the Union, for which the hindi language may be used in addition to the English language shall be as specified in the schedule annexed to the Order. The schedule mentioned several items which need not be detailed. They included correspondence with members of the public, correspondence with the state Governments which have adopted Hindi as their official language, government resolutions and legislative enactments, Treaties and agreements. There was also an earlier Presidential Order dated 27-5-1952, which had authorised the use of Hindi in addition to the English Language for Warrants of appointments of Governors and Judges, both of the Supreme Court and High courts. In the Presidential Order of April 1960, the directive was given, following the suggestion of the Committee constituted under Article 344 (4) that the Ministry of Home affairs might take action for the preparation and implementation of plan of action for the progressive use of Hindi as the official language of the Union. The broad outline of the plan or programme for progressive use of Hindi was thus indicated: "the Committee has suggested that the Union Government should prepare and implement a plan of action for the progressive use of Hindi as the official language of Union. No restrictions are to be imposed for the present, on the use of the English language for any of the official purposes of the Union. Necessary action may be taken accordingly by the Ministry of Home Affairs for the preparation and implementation of a plan or programme which will be concerned with the preparatory measures for facilitating the progressive use of Hindi for the Union administration, and for promoting the use of Hindi in addition to English for various purposes of Union as provided in clause (2) of Article 343 of the Constitution. Again, the extent to which Hindi gets used in addition to English will depend largely on the effectiveness of the preparatory measures. The plan for actual use of Hindi in addition to English will need to be reviewed and adjusted from time to time in the light of experience. " on 3-3-1966 the Home Ministry issued an office Memorandum which referred to paragraph 5 of the Presidential Order dated 27-4-1960, namely, the making of the in-service training in Hindi obligatory for all Central Government employees below 45 years of age, excluding certain classes of employees, and observed that although a programme of facilitating the progressive use of Hindi for Union official purposes had been circulated to all Ministries in March 1961, which required that the Hindi training of Administrative personnel should be completed by March 1966 a review of the progress made till then in the training of administrative personnel in Hindi had shown that a large number of employees had to undergo this training. The Ministry, therefore, decided upon certain steps to be taken up so that fuller use was made of the facilities available under the Hindi teaching scheme. The steps were these: " (i) It should be ensured that 20 per cent of the employees working in a ministry and in its attached and subordinate offices, who are required to receive this training, are deputed to attend the Hindi classes every year; (ii) It should be ensured that the employees so deputed should get themselves enrolled in the Hindi classes; (iii) Failure to attend these classes regularly should attract penalties as in the case of absence from duty without adequate reason (refusal on the part of the immediate superiors to relieve employees should be severely discouraged): and (iv) The obligatory training of administrative personnel should also include their appearance at the examinations". The Home Ministry then in the Official Memorandum requested that the Ministry of finance etc. might issue necessary instructions to all attached and subordinate offices.