UNION OF INDIA Vs. B VISWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants. We find no merit in the appeal, we, however, propose to make some observations, which, of course, are not besides the matter before us. The Union of India has come in appeal against a judgment holding, inter alia, that a school allegedly established by one Atomic Energy Educational Society, cannot deny admission to the students who are not children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy of the Union of India. It is on record that eversince the establishment of the school, mainly run on the grant received from the Union of India, it has been permitting admission to the children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy stationed in the city of Hyderabad and Irving in the colony established for their residence as well as children of others who live in the colony and in other parts of the city. When a number of students, however, who are not children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy, have reached courses of studies upto 8th and 9th class in the school, they have been served by the management of the school with a notice that its apex body has taken a decision to admit only the children of the employees of the department of Atomic Energy. Realising, it seems, however that telling a direct 'no' and asking them to keep out of the school, might invite intervention by the competent authorities, the management improvised the alleged provisional admission saying that in that class they were admitted only provisionally and the school was not guaranteeing them admission to continue their studies and that their applications would be forwarded to the Secretary, Atomic Energy Educational Society, Bombay, for consideration and "if seats are available then only Secretary may grant admission to your ward". Several of the children, who studied in the school and intended accordingly to continue their studies for there was no reason for them to discontinue their studies and also for there was no reason for their removal from the institution, have moved this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 13118,13119, 13120,15616, 16524, 16946 and 17649 of 1995. A learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows :

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the finding recorded by the learned single Judge -

(3.) We affirm the order of the learned single Judge because he has reached to a just conclusion and because we have found that there are good grounds for the conclusions similar to the conclusions at which learned single Judge has arrived at. It is necessary, however, to clarify that amongst the most fundamental of the rights, which any person in our democratic republic has been granted, is expressed as 'equal protection of law and equality before law'. It will be difficult for the Union of India to say ever that it is not a 'State' as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, that it has no obligation to act within the commands of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Right to receive education has been accepted as a fundamental right flowing from right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, contents and parameters of which, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has pointed out in Vnnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P. (l)AIR 1993 SC 2178, are determined in the light of Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution has said, 'it means free education upto 14 years of age to every child and after 14 years of age right gets circumscribed by limit s of economic capacity of a state.' Learned single Judge, in our opinion, is not right when he has said that no question of violation of fundamental right is involved in the instant proceeding.