Karnataka High Court
The Belgaum Zilla vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7346
WP No. 102557 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.102557/2016(EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE BELGAUM ZILLA
PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAN SAMITI
BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SHRI RAMAKANT D. SHANBAG,
AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MANGALWAR PETH,
TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI - 590 006.
2. THE SECRETARY, THE BELGAUM ZILLA
PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAN SAMITI,
R/O: TILAKWADI,
BELAGAVI.
Digitally
signed by V N
BADIGER
Location: High 3. THE HEAD MASTER, M.V. HERWADAKAR
Court of
Karnataka ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL,
AGE:60 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE,
R/O: 45, BHANDUR GALLI,
ANGOL, BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARIAT
M S BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7346
WP No. 102557 of 2016
BANGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
URDU ANDMINORITY LANGUAGE SCHOOLS
NRUPTHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
(MINORITY INSTITUTIONS)
O/O COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS,
BANGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
BELAGAVI, CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING
NO.M.C.4/C.P.I.B.M/BHA.AA.SHA.GHO/26/2015-16 DATED
29.02.2016, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, VIDE
ANNEXURE-F. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
IMPUGNED LETTER/ COMMUNICATION No.E7/RTE/ADMISSION/
MVH/2015-16 DATED 03.03.2016, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.4, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING -
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7346
WP No. 102557 of 2016
ORDER
1. A short grievance of the petitioner is that respondent-Authority while issuing the order dated 29.02.2016 had directed the petitioner-Institution to admit the students under the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2017 to LKG or the first standard, declining the contention of the petitioner that the Institution in question is linguistic minority Institution.
2. Counsel for the petitioner taking through the records, more particularly, the communication at Annexure-C issued by the Secretary, Education Department to the Commissioner for Public Instructions, Bengaluru, submit that the petitioner-Institution has been recognized as a linguistic and religious minority Institution. He further submits that the petitioner-Institution decided to start an English Medium School in the name of M.V.Herwadkar, in recognition of his services and contribution in the construction of the building. He submits that the said Institution comes within the umbrella of the petitioner-Samiti. He further submits that once the petitioner-Samiti has been recognized as an Institution of -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7346 WP No. 102557 of 2016 linguistic minority status, in terms of the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, they are given autonomous charge of maintaining/administering the Institution and the respondent cannot insist upon such Institution to admit students under the provisions of RTE Act, 2017.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Education Rights Trust Vs. Government of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.8028/2019 with connected matters disposed of on 31.05.2019.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute that the M.V.Herwadkar English Medium School is being run and governed by the petitioner-Samiti, which has been accorded the status of linguistic minority school.
5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Canara High School Association Vs.State of Karnataka reported in LAWS(KAR)-2007-10-63, at paragraph 9 has held as under:
"9. In the present case, the first petitioner-society in fact has been recognized to be a linguistic minority status by -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7346 WP No. 102557 of 2016 the very first respondent state government, although it may be pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, but nevertheless it has been so recognized. If it is so recognized, the state government cannot make a distinction of one educational institution in respect of which it has granted that declaration and status and another educational institution managed, owned and administered by the very linguistic minority institution or other educational institutions, which according to the state government, having not yet been so recognized or the State Government has not granted that status etc. and therefore is not entitled to claim the benefits protected under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. If some of the educational institutions owned, managed and administered by the first petitioner-society have already been recognized by the very state government as linguistic minority institutions, it is inevitable that the other educational institution, also owned, managed and administered by the very society, have the same character, unless the State government has found that some other institution owned and managed by some other management is trying to usurp the minority status of the first petitioner-society and which is not the case of the State Government nor is it urged so during the course of arguments, the state cannot make a distinction."
6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal and factual aspect of the matter, petition is allowed. The order at Annexures-F and G issued by respondent No.2 and 4 respectively, are quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38