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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7346
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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7346
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
