N RAJALAKSHMI MINOR Vs. DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from abolishing or closing B.A. Sanskrit main Course in 2nd respondent-College.

(2.) Affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is sworn to by father and natural guardian of petitioner, wherein it is stated that petitioner is the younger daughter of the deponent. 2nd respondent is an Institution aided by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It has been in existence for more than a century. It is further said that the 2nd respondent-College is teaching Sanskrit not only as second language, but it has also a separate degree for Sanskrit language alone. Petitioner and his family members are devout Hindus with a humble background and conservative outlook. It is said that they attach great importance to old values, and first daughter of the deponent is also a student of 2nd respondent-College in B.A. Sanskrit. Petitioner wanted his younger daughter also to join the 2nd respondent-College. So, on 22-5-98, he went to the College to obtain an application form for admitting his second daughter in B.A. Sanskrit Course. But he was informed that the 1st respondent has passed an order directing the 2nd respondent to close down B.A. Sanskrit with effect from Academic Year 1998-99. The Principal of 2nd respondent-College expressed her inability to issue application form. It is said that at least from 1918 admission is given to the said Course with Sanskrit as major, i.e., Part I Language, which is around 25, and the strength of students who take Sanskrit as major would be around 10. The result of abolition is that neither Sanskrit is available to students as Part I language nor as major. So, none of the students who have passed out + 2 Examination with Sanskrit as second language could get admission into the 2nd respondent-College with Sanskrit as Part I language or as major. Therefore, the entry of girl students is closed for ever. It is said that the decision to close down the Course is against the Policy of the Government of India, and it is a retrograde step in the advancement of Sanskrit which has been recognised and lauded as the oldest one. The very cultural heritage of India is rock based on this language. It is said that the policy of the Central Government was throughout to further the promotion of Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the fountain source of Indian culture, and it is the store-house of immeasurable wealth which is an indispensable asset for regaining India's status in the world. The abolition of the Course is certainly against the educational policy of the Government of India. It is said that there is no reasonable cause for directing the abolition of the Course once and for all in the 2nd respondent-Institution. Monetary constraint could not be a reasonable ground for such abolition. Firstly in imparting education, the theory of quid pro quo or any allied consideration could not be the basis, for, it is the duty of the Government to import education. In the famous Unnikrishnan's case, AIR 1993 SC 2178, the Supreme Court has held that at least elementary education is a fundamental right. Secondly, the Government of India has formulated a Scheme by which 100% financial assistance is given under various heads for promotion of Sanskrit, and one such is a grant to State Government for development and propagation of Sanskrit. The intention of the Union Government is to give much assistance for the propagation of Sanskrit Language and, therefore, the attempt now made to discontinue the Course is not a valid decision taken by the State Government. It is said that life and livelihood necessarily include cultural heritage and its preservation. As a welfare State, the Government is bound to extend its helping hand at least by imparting languages and arts which would promote the preservation of such heritage.

(3.) When the matter came for admission, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice. In response to that, he produced the file in order to satisfy the Court that the policy decision taken by the Government is not without any basis, nor is it an arbitrary exercise of power. There were some materials placed before the State Government so as to take a policy decision to shift the said Course to another College about 1 km. away on the same road. It was further said that it was not only in respect of Sanskrit Language, but also in respect of some other Courses, the Government has taken similar decision. It is further said that so long as the policy decision of the Government is not challenged on the grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness or irrationality, the same is not liable to be reviewed by this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.