Telangana High Court

Mohd Shujath Hussain vs State Of Telangana on 8 November, 2024

                *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                AND
               *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU
                          RAJESHWAR RAO
                   +WRIT PETITION No.21200 of 2024

% 08-11-2024


# Mohd. Shujath Hussain
                                                       ...Petitioner
vs.


$ State of Telangana and Others
                                                        ... Respondents


!Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.Raghunath, Senior Counsel, representing
                             Sri Mohammed Omer Farooq

^Counsel for Respondent No.1: Ms. Shalini, G.P. for Services-II
^Counsel for Respondent No.2 & 3: Sri Harender Pershad, Senior Counsel
                                  Representing Sri A.Naren Rudra,
                                  Standing Counsel for TSHC

<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1.    W.P.(C).No.4598 of 2010 dated 10.12.2010
2.    1998 SCC OnLine Mad.433
3.    1999 SCC OnLine Kar574
4.    2002 SCC OnLine AII 1182
5.    2017 SCC OnLine Mad37540
6.    2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2248
7.    (1990)2 SCC 352
8.    2024 SCC OnLine SC 1838
9.    1999 SCC OnLine Kar 574
10    2018 SCC Online Bom 2248
11.   (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 352
12.   2024 SCC Online 1838
13.   (2004) 6 SCC 264
                                     2
                                                              SP,J & RRN,J
                                                            Wp_21200_2024

        IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                         HYDERABAD
                            ****

                  WRIT PETITION No.21200 OF 2024
                   (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)


Between:

Mohd. Shujath Hussain
                                                     ...Petitioner
vs.

State of Telangana and Others
                                                 ... Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 08.11.2024


              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


1.     Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
       may be allowed to see the Judgments?      :

2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       Marked to Law Reporters/Journals?         :

3.     Whether His Lordship wishes to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?        :



                                                      ___________________
                                                         SUJOY PAUL, J


                                   _____________________________________
                                   NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
                                     3
                                                        SP,J & RRN,J
                                                      Wp_21200_2024

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                         AND
         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU
                   RAJESHWAR RAO

                   WRIT PETITION No.21200 OF 2024

ORDER:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Sujoy Paul)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

challenges the constitutionality of Rules 5.3 and 7(i) of the

Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023

(impugned Rules) which were brought into force in exercise of

power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution through

G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 10.06.2023. The consequential recruitment

notification dated 10.04.2024 which is making it obligatory for the

candidates to be conversant in Telugu language and scheme of

written examination providing for translation from English to

Telugu and vice-versa without providing the option of being

conversant in Urdu and translation in Urdu is also called in

question in this petition.

Facts:

2. The petitioner is a practicing advocate and submitted his

candidature as Civil Judge pursuant to notification dated

10.04.2024. The petitioner has studied in Urdu medium during

his schooling and has not studied in Telugu medium. The 12th

certificate and graduation certificate are placed on record to

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

substantiate the same. The petitioner also filed his enrolment

certificate and certificate of practice.

3. The petitioner appeared in the qualifying examination and

cleared it. After qualifying the examination, the petitioner was

permitted to write the main written examination subject to

outcome of the instant writ petition. The impugned Rules and the

notification are coming in his way, and therefore, the present writ

petition is filed.

Contention of the petitioner:

4. Sri V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri

Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submits that the impugned Rules were introduced for the first

time in the judicial service pursuant to an amendment vide

G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 06.01.2020 amending the Telangana State

Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017)

(Annexure P-3). The Rules of 2017 did not prescribe the

requirement of proficiency in Telugu language as a mandatory

condition. The Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007

(Rules of 2007) were in vogue till 2017, but did not contain any

requirement of proficiency in Telugu language as a condition for

recruitment as a Judicial Officer.

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

5. It is canvassed that Urdu is recognized as an official

language under Article 345 of the Constitution pursuant to

amendment vide Act No.30 of 2017 to the Telugu Official

Languages Act, 1966 (Official Languages Act). Since Urdu has

been given the status of second official language in this state, it is

arbitrary and unjust in not providing an option of being

conversant with Urdu or Telugu in the Rules for recruitment for

Civil Judges. In addition, it is urged that Urdu is recognized as a

language of Court in 31 districts out of 33 districts in the State of

Telangana which is evident from notification vide G.O.Ms.No.51

dated 17.05.2022 issued in exercise of power under Section 272 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned Senior Counsel

submits that it was never mandatory for the candidates to study

Telugu and such a requirement of being proficient in Telugu was

never part of the statute before impugned Rules came into being.

Thus, impugned Rules are manifestly arbitrary and fail to consider

that the Telangana region has historically being a multi-cultural

State. The people from various regions of the country speaking

various languages reside in Telangana. Urdu language has always

been an integral part of the culture and ethos of the State and

State has always recognized itself as a bilingual State warranting

equal recognition to Telugu and Urdu both. In similar situation,

the West Bengal Judicial Service Examination provides the option

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

of translating from English to Bangali/Hindi/Urdu/

Nepali/Snatali.

6. It is further pointed out that teaching of Telugu became

mandatory in the State of Telangana in a faced manner only

pursuant to the Telangana (Compulsory Teaching and Learning of

Telugu in Schools) Act, 2018. Learned Senior Counsel, by taking

this Court to the counter of respondent Nos.2 and 3, contended

that the principal reason assigned for introducing offending

provision in the impugned Rules is that the majority of population

in Telangana State speaks and understands Telugu language. The

State has forgotten that more than 15% people in Telangana are

proficient in Urdu. The reason assigned in the said counter is

that proficiency in Telugu is necessary for efficient dispensation of

justice as various critical judicial process and majority of

individuals involve in the process of examination of witnesses,

identification parade, recording of evidence, etc., takes place in

Telugu. By taking assistance from Rule 114 of Civil Rules of

Practice and Rule 57 of Criminal Rules of Practice, learned Senior

Counsel submits that there exist enabling provision for

translation, and therefore, the impugned provision has no basis.

7. It is strenuously contended by learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner that the impugned provision excludes the persons

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

proficient in Urdu like the petitioner from the process of

recruitment to the judiciary. This artificial classification has no

rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The

impugned provision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution. The petitioner, although is not questioning the

competence of respondents in prescribing the regional language

test as part of process of recruitment to the judicial services,

questioning the impugned provision and notification being

arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.

Stand of respondent Nos.2 and 3:

8. Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 and 3, opposed the petition on the basis of

counter filed. It is submitted that the impugned provision became

part of statute by considering linguistic demography of Telangana.

Telugu is the first language of at least 77% of population of

Telangana, and is therefore, predominantly used language in the

State. All the trial Courts in Telangana handle cases where the

complaints filed by the complainants and statements recorded

under Cr.P.C., and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are

predominantly in the vernacular Telugu language. Furthermore,

victims in criminal cases often communicate in Telugu. Dying

declarations and statements under the relevant provisions are also

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

recorded in Telugu in order to ensure accuracy and authenticity.

Furthermore, during critical judicial processes, such as

identification parades, examination of witnesses and suspects and

recording of evidence in open Court, the majority of individuals

communicate in Telugu. This linguistic preference underscores

the need for judicial proceedings to accommodate and reflect the

use of Telugu. The Civil Judges are required to rely on

documentary evidence which is predominantly written in Telugu.

In this backdrop, the use of Telugu language in the judicial

process is not just preferable, but also essential for the proper

administration and dispensation of justice. This decision of

requirement of proficiency in Telugu is taken as a policy decision

which does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India.

9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the vires of a

Rule can be tested on limited grounds such as infringement of

fundamental rights or lack of legislative competence, but not on

the basis of alleged contravention of Article 345 of the

Constitution. Article 345 merely confers upon the State

Legislature a discretion to designate one or more languages for

official purposes within the State. The provision pertains to

broader official language framework of the State and has no

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

relation with imposition of Telugu proficiency as a criterion for

judicial appointments. Resultantly, the argument that the Rules

in question infringe Article 345 is legally untenable.

10. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the

petitioner submitted his candidature and participated in

preliminary examination being fully aware of the fact that he is

required to demonstrate his proficiency in Telugu by passing the

requisite test. After submitting the candidature and participating

in the preliminary examination without any demur, the petitioner

cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned provisions. In

other words, it is submitted that the petitioner with eyes wide

open to the criteria of proficiency in Telugu participated in the

selection without any objection. Therefore, he is 'estopped' from

challenging the said provision in this petition. While filling up the

online application form, the candidate was required to respond

with either 'YES' or 'NO' to the query regarding Telugu proficiency.

The petitioner unequivocally declared 'YES' in response to this

query, thereby affirming his proficiency in Telugu. The petitioner

subsequently took a U-turn and filed this petition which is not

entertainable. For this reason, it is clear that declaration given by

the petitioner in the application form where he declared himself to

be proficient in Telugu language runs contrary to paras 3, 4 and 5

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

of writ affidavit. It is forcefully contended that requirement of

Telugu proficiency by no stretch of imagination can be termed as

arbitrary and discriminatory.

11. It is further argued that the scope of Official Language Act is

very limited and cannot be stretched to the extent suggested by

the present petitioner. The similar question cropped up before

other High Courts on the basis of similar provision of Official

Languages Act applicable to such States, but High Courts have

declined relief based on similar grounds.

12. The argument that the impugned provision creates a class

within the class and discriminatory in nature, is without any

basis. The provision merely prescribes that the candidate who

desirous to become judicial officer must be conversant with

Telugu and such a rule is applied uniformly for all candidates

without any arbitrary classification. Thus, it cannot be said to be

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

13. It is common ground that Urdu is acknowledged for the

purpose of Section 272 of Cr.P.C. Telugu still remains the

predominant language required for conducting effective judicial

proceedings and official Court business in the State of Telangana.

Countering the argument that Telugu proficiency was introduced

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

for the first time in 2020, it is submitted that this statement is

misleading and contrary to record. The requirement of Telugu

language proficiency is in vogue for nearly 60 years in the State.

It is urged that earliest rules were the A.P. State and Subordinate

Service Rules, 1962 (Rules of 1962) whereunder Rule 13-A

prescribed Telugu proficiency as a qualification for serving the

district judiciary. The Rules of 1962 were superseded and

substituted by A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996

(Rules of 1996) whereuner Rule 13 also prescribes proficiency in

Telugu language. The Rules of 1996 were also stood superseded

and substituted by Rules of 2017. Pursuant to the Rules of 2017,

the High Court issued several notifications for recruitment of

judicial officers while prescribing the requirement of Telugu

proficiency which includes the notification dated 08.03.2019. The

requirement of Telugu proficiency was formally introduced in the

Rules of 2017 by G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 06.01.2020. Thereafter, the

Rules of 2017 were superseded and substituted by the instant

rules. Therefore, it is absolutely incorrect to state that the

requirement of Telugu language proficiency is introduced for the

first time in 2020.

14. Lastly it is submitted that principle relating to classification

applies only when two identically situated individuals are treated

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

differently. In the instant recruitment, all the candidates are

uniformly required to meet the same language proficiency criteria

and pass the same examination. Thus, there is no unreasonable

classification and there exists a nexus with the object sought to be

achieved.

15. In nut shell, the submission of Sri Harender Pershad,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, is

that:-

(i) No fundamental right of the petitioner was breached.

(ii) It is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the language in the interest of functional excellence.

(iii) There is no breach of Articles 14, 16 and 29 of the Constitution of India.

(iv) Prescription of another language and expectation of proficiency is not unknown to law.

(v) There is no discrimination or arbitrariness or abuse of power in introducing the aforesaid Rules.

16. In support of above submissions, he placed reliance on the

following judgments:

i) Judgment of Guwahati High Court in Smt.Kumari Arti v. The State of Assam 1;

           ii)      V.Rajasekaran v. UT of Pondicherry 2;
           iii)     Anjuman-E-Tarrequi-E-Funkaran-E-Urdu v. State of
                    Karnataka 3;
           iv)      U.P.Urdu Development Organisation v. State of
                    U.P. 4;
           v)       P.Aruljothi v. Union of India 5;
           vi)      Shobhit Gaur v. State of Maharashtra 6;

W.P.(C).No.4598 of 2010 dated 10.12.2010

1998 SCC OnLine Mad.433

1999 SCC OnLine Kar574

2002 SCC OnLine AII 1182

2017 SCC OnLine Mad37540

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

vii) Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India 7;

viii) Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law Firm v. Union of India 8.

Stand of State of Telangana:

17. Learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submits

that although counter has not been filed, para-wise remarks by

way of instructions are received. A copy thereof is supplied to the

Court. The stand of respondent No.1 is that the requirement of

proficiency in Telugu is not for the first time introduced in

Telangana. In the joint State of Andhra Pradesh also, such a

requirement was there from time immemorial. Reliance is placed

on the Telangana Official Language Act, 1966. It is further

submitted that in various recruitments, Telugu was prescribed as

essential language. Proficiency in Telugu is necessary for efficient

administration of justice. Section 3 of Telugu Official Language

Act, 1966 provides that Telugu Official Language Act, 1966

provides that Telugu is the first language, whereas, Urdu will be

the second language. The petitioner, while filling-up online

application filled the answer as "Yes" against the query whether he

has proficiency in Telugu. After having filled up such response in

"Yes", the petitioner is estopped from taking a different view and

2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2248

(1990)2 SCC 352

2024 SCC OnLine SC 1838

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

challenge the impugned Rules. No fundamental right of the

petitioner is infringed.

Rejoinder submission:

18. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed

heavy reliance on Rules of 2007 to bolster the submission that

Rule 21 prescribes about "Tests". A minute reading of this Rule

makes it clear that Civil Judges and District Judges in direct

recruitment were exempted from passing any language test and it

was expected that Academy will prepare the necessary curriculum

for imparting training to the judicial officers. The same practice

can still be continued. The proficiency test in Telugu was

prescribed for the first time in year 2018.

19. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel submits that although the

petitioner has answered as "Yes" against the entry regarding

proficiency in Telugu in online form, the said action of the

petitioner was under compulsion, because if the petitioner would

have answered it as "No", his application would not have been

accepted at all.

20. Thus, promptly, thereafter he submitted a letter dated

06.08.2024 seeking modification of "Yes" to "No". The said letter is

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

duly received by official respondents. Thus, impugned provisions

may be set aside.

21. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated

above.

22. We have heard the parties at length.

Findings:

23. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is apposite to re-

produce the provision of Rules which are called in question in this

petition:

"(5.3) Proficiency in Telugu Language: The candidates applying for the posts of District Judge and Civil Judge under direct recruitment and recruitment by transfer, must be able to read, speak and write the Telugu language fluently and shall pass test as may be prescribed by the High Court.

7)(i) The High Court shall conduct written examinations consisting of three papers i.e., (I) Civil Law (II) Criminal. Law and (III) English, that includes Translation from English to Telugu language and Telugu to English language, Essay Writing, Grammar and Vocabulary carrying 100 marks each, having a duration as fixed by Court from time to time for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the High the post of District Judge. English paper is divided into two parts. Part-I carries 30 marks and Part II carries 70 marks.

In Part-I the candidate1s ability to understand his / her proficiency in Telugu language will be assessed. Candidate is required to translate from English .to Telugu and Telugu to English. In Part-II, candidate's ability in Essay writing, Grammar and vocabulary will be assessed. The Essay Writing test shall be on Legal subjects only. Candidate has to secure 50 % marks in each part to qualify in the written examination: 8 Provided that the Paper-III shall be considered only as a qualifying examination and marks

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

secured in the said Paper-III shall not be included in calculating the aggregate for short listing for viva voce test."

24. The bone of contention of the petitioner is that admittedly

Urdu is recognized as second official language in the present

State. The notification dated 17.05.2022 (annexure-P12) issued in

exercise of power under Section 272 of C.P.C. recognizes Urdu in

31 districts out of total 33 districts. The proficiency in Telugu

became statutory requirement only from 2018. Above points

deserve serious consideration. However, before dealing with

aforesaid points, it is apposite to mention that, it is not in dispute

between the parties that before specific Rules came into being for

judicial officers, their services were governed by Rules of 1962.

Thereafter, Rules of 1996 came into being and governed their

services. In Rule 13 (a) of Rules of 1962 and Rule 13 of Rules of

1996, it was made clear that every person who was appointed to a

service, after a cutoff date, during the probation period must pass

language test in Telugu, failing which, his/her probation will not

be extended. Thus, it is not in dispute that the passing of Telugu

test was an essential requirement upto 2007.

25. The exemption in Rule 21 of Rules of 2007 was given to the

category of Civil Judges and District Judges with a view that

proficiency in Telugu can be achieved in Judicial Academy.

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

However, the respondents in their wisdom decided to again

introduce requirements of proficiency in Telugu.

26. The ancillary question is whether any such requirements

can be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory in nature?

27. This is trite that it is in the province of the employer to

decide about the conditions of service, eligibility and qualification

etc. Employer is the best Judge to decide about these aspects.

The scope of judicial review on these aspects is very limited.

Unless such prescription of qualification, eligibility etc., is violative

of fundamental rights, suffer from arbitrariness or discrimination,

interference cannot be made. Another view is possible cannot be a

ground for interference.

28. Justice Amitav Roy (as his Lordship then was) speaking for

the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court opined that the

proficiency in Assamese language is in the interest of the

functional excellence and cannot be interfered with. Interestingly,

in the said case, the proficiency in Assamese was prescribed by

way of advertisement and there was no statutory backing for the

same. Yet, interference was declined by the Court by holding

thus:

"21. Assimilation of Language Paper having regard to the purpose sought to be achieved thereby, in the context of

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

excellence in service also cannot be repudiated to be impertinent or insignificant. A visible nexus between such prescription and the object sought to be achieved is discernible which can by no means be undermined. In any view of the matter, the High Court being the best judge of the exigencies of service, it is empowered to model the curriculum suited thereto to ensure the desired level of performance in service, the Grade-III thereof in particular being the foundation on which the institutional edifice is as suredly built.

22. Constitutional and statutory reinforcement in this regard is traceable to Article 345 of the Constitution of India and the Assam Official Language Act, 1960. Though the Rules as such do not disclose the requirement of assessment of the trainees on their proficiency in the Language Paper and the advertisement as well did not spell out the same, having regard to the authority and discretion left to the High Court to configure the curriculum and administer the pre-appointment qualifying examination, the petitioner's plea of change of the rules of the game in course of the selection process is wholly unconvincing."

29. The Madras High Court in V. Rajasekaran (supra) opined

that no directions can be issued to conduct the entrance test in

Tamil medium also. There is no breach of Article 29(2) of the

Constitution. Likewise, Karnataka High Court in Anjuman-E-

Tarrequi-E-Funkaran-E-Urdu v. State of Karnataka 9, opined

that it is in the wisdom of State Government to chose to impose

such condition for better efficiency of the administration. This will

not violate any minority rights.

30. The Allahabad High Court had an occasion to consider the

prayer to prepare examination paper in bilingual language (Hindi

and Urdu) as per the official language of State of Uttar Pradesh in

1999 SCC OnLine Kar 574

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

compliance of Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Official Language Act,

1951 which is pari materia to official language act of Telangana.

The High Court opined that the action of respondents in not

providing question papers in Urdu language cannot be said to be

arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

31. The next reliance was on the judgment of High Court of

Bombay in Shobhit Gaur v. State of Maharashtra and

Others 10. Interestingly, the following portion of the Recruitment

Rules was subject matter of challenge before Bombay High Court:-

"(d) Knowledge of Marathi:-

Candidate must have sufficient knowledge of Marathi so as to enable him to speak, read and write in Marathi and to translate with facility from Marathi into English and vice versa. Such knowledge must be certified."

(Emphasis Supplied)

32. If this clause of rule of Maharashtra Judicial Service is

examined in juxtaposition to the impugned rules, it will be clear

that there is complete similarity in the rules as well as the

legislative intent behind it. The High Court of Bombay considered

para No.2.6 of 118th Report of Law Commission of India. The

relevant portion reads as under:

"2.6 Knowledge of local language has assumed considerable importance in recent times, more so in view of section 2 of the Official Language Act and section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 137(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Eleven States have prescribed knowledge of

2018 SCC Online Bom 2248

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

local language as an essential qualification. In the rules of some States, a provision is found requiring proficiency in one more language. At least in one state, power is conferred on the concerned authority to prescribe knowledge of a third language too."

(Emphasis Supplied)

33. After considering the said report, the Division Bench opined

that the rule reproduced herein above satisfies the tests laid down

by Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore challenge to the

said rule was repelled. The Apex Court in Hindi Hitrakshak

Samiti v. Union of India 11 came to hold that the prescription of

medium of language is in the realm of policy decision of the State

and therefore there is very little scope of interference. The Apex

Court in a recent order in Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law

Firm v. Union of India 12 opined as under:-

"2. The requirement of obtaining proficiency in the language of the State for appointment to the District Judicial Service is a valid requirement. The judicial officers on appointment to the District Judiciary have to appreciate evidence in the language of the state. The imposition of such a requirement is manifestly proper and, in any event, raises an issue of policy. We, therefore, decline to entertain the petition."

(Emphasis Supplied)

34. The Apex Court in a different context in Usha Mehta v.

State of Maharashtra 13, came to hold as under:-

"10. ...While imposing regulations, the State shall be cautious not to destroy the minority character of institutions. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the respondents prevented them from teaching Gujarati

(1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 352

2024 SCC Online 1838

(2004) 6 SCC 264

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

language. On the other hand, they are only challenging the compulsory imposition of Marathi language for students and asking for a right "not to learn" Marathi language while living in the State of Maharashtra. The regulation in this case imposed by the State of Maharashtra upon the linguistic minority right is to make Marathi language a compulsory course in school syllabi. The issue for resolution here is to find whether this action is reasonable or not. The impugned policy decision was taken by keeping in view the larger interest of the State, because the official and common business are carried on in that State in Marathi language. A proper understanding of Marathi language is necessary for easily carrying out the day-to-

day affairs of the people living in the State of Maharashtra and also for proper carrying out of daily administration. Hence the regulation imposed by the State of Maharashtra upon the linguistic minorities to teach its regional language is only a reasonable one. This Court ruled that the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of "their choice"

under Article 30(1) read with Article 29(1) would include the right to have choice of medium of instruction..."

35. In the same judgment, it was further held as under:-

"...In our view the resistance to learn the regional language will lead to alienation from the mainstream of life resulting in linguistic fragmentation within the State, which is an anathema to national integration..."

36. The notification dated 17.05.2022 (Annexure P.12) on which

heavy reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner shows that it is issued in exercise of power under

Section 272 of Cr.P.C. This prescription, by no stretch of

imagination, provides any enforceable right to the petitioner to

wriggle out of the requirement of proficiency in Telugu.

37. Thus, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the

provision of Recruitment Rules called in question are arbitrary,

SP,J & RRN,J Wp_21200_2024

discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The

impugned Rules have a rationale behind their introduction and a

valid purpose sought to be achieved. Since the decision taken by