1. By way of present petitions, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:
“(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction by quashing and setting aside the action of the respondents for not giving admission to the petitioners in first year D.EI.E.D (PTC) course merely on the ground that they have passed SSC (Std.10 examination) in Urdu medium as per Rule 4.6.2, the said rule may be declared as ultra-vires and against the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also declared null and void, as being highhanded, illegal, illogical, irrational and discriminatory in future and against the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to reconsider Rule No.4.6.2 for giving admission in D.EI.ED (PTC) course and further be pleased to hold that the petitioners who have passed Std.10 and 12 examinations with Urdu one of the subjects, are entitled and eligible and treated them as eligible to get the admission in first year D.EI.ED. (PTC) course and further be pleased to direct respondents not to insist Rule 4.6.2 for giving admission in PTC Urdu medium respondent No.4 college so far as it relates to the present petitioners are concerned;
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to expand the education facility by opening secondary and higher secondary school in Urdu medium and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to open one PTC college for Urdu in each district of the State of Gujarat;
(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to give the admission to all the petitioners provisionally in respondent No.4 College till then 9 seats of Urdu medium PTC course may be kept vacant, pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition”.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners belong to socially and economically backward classes (Bakshipanch) and the petitioners have passed Std.10 and Std.12 examinations with one of the subjects being Urdu. They have not studied Std.10 and Std.12 examinations in Urdu medium school because there is no Urdu medium school which is available in Godhra. The petitioners are having prescribed age limit as per rules and are entitled to get the admission in D.EI.ED. (PTC) course.
3.1 The respondent-State of Gujarat has issued Government Resolution dated 28.4.2000 by declaring a new policy for PTC admission with effect from 2000- 2001 education year and accordingly, the rules for admission provided that the candidates should have either passed HSC examination in Urdu medium or have passed till Std. 7 in Urdu Medium and in Std.10 and Std.12, they should have studied Urdu as one of the subjects with minimum 60% of marks.
3.2 Respondent No.2- Director of Primary Education has published an advertisement for admission into D.EI.ED (PTC) course on 6.7.2012. The on-line applications in prescribed form have been invited. In the said advertisement, respondent No.2 prescribed the qualification of Std.12 pass with 50% marks and for reserved category with 45% marks and medium of admission those who have passed Std.10 examination in concerned medium and age limit is prescribed for 24 years, and 5 years relaxation for reserved category. The respondent authorities have also published rules for admission popularly known as 'Rules for Admission for Diploma in Primary Education (PTC)' and according to same, duration of the course is two years. Rule 4.6.2 of the said Rules provides that for admission in Urdu medium PTC College, the candidates concerned have passed Std.10 examination in Urdu medium.
3.3 The petitioners have submitted their prescribed application form on-line and the petitioners have been called for admission on 4.8.2012.
3.4 However, as the petitioners have not passed Std.10 examination in Urdu medium school, the respondent authorities have not granted the admission to the petitioners for D.EI.ED.(PTC) course for the year 2012-2013.
4.1 Mr.Jasani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have passed Std.12 (HSC) examination with Urdu as one of the subjects as there is no Urdu Medium School for the boy students in Godhra. All the petitioners are members of Bakshipanch. Pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners have applied for admission in First Year PTC Urdu courses in prescribed form and names of the petitioners were included in the merit list. However, on 4.8.2012, the respondent authority has denied to give admission to the petitioners in PTC course in respondent No.4 College which is one college in the entire State of Gujarat on the ground that the petitioners have not passed Std. 10 (SSC) examination in Urdu Medium.
4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in respondent No.4-College, 37 seats are available for PTC course for Urdu language, out of which 8 male students and 16 female students are given admission, and 13 seats are lying vacant.
4.3 It is next contended that in the entire State of Gujarat, only one PTC college for Urdu Medium, i.e. respondent No.4 is available and therefore, all the petitioners are sufferers and are deprived the employment as Primary Teacher for Urdu Medium Primary School and therefore, the present petitions have been preferred to quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents and for directing the respondents to grant admission to the petitioners in PTC Urdu Medium Primary School, i.e. respondent No.4, where there are 13 seats which are lying vacant.
4.4 Counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai V/S. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2002) 8 SCC 481, more particularly, para-97, in the said case, the Apex Court has observed as under:
“97. In The State of Bombay vs. Bombay Education Society and Others [(1955) 1 SCR 568], the State had issued a circular, the operative portion of which directed that no primary or secondary school could, from the date of that circular admit to a class where English was used as a medium of instruction, any pupil other than pupils belonging to a section of citizens, the language of whom was English, viz., Anglo-Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic descent. The validity of the circular was challenged while admission was refused, inter alia, to a member of the Gujarati Hindu Community. A number of writ petitions were filed and the High Court allowed them. In an application filed by the State of Bombay, this Court had to consider whether the said circular was ultra vires Article 29(2). In deciding this question, the Court analyzed the provisions of Articles 29(2) and 30, and repelled the contention that Article 29(2) guaranteed the right only to the citizens of the minority group. It was observed, in this connection, at page 579, as follows:
"The language of Article 29(2) is wide and unqualified and may well cover all citizens whether they belong to the majority or minority group. Article 15 protects all citizens against the State whereas the protection of Article 29(2) extends against the State or anybody who denies the right conferred by it. Further Article 15 protects all citizens against discrimination generally but Article 29(2) is a protection against a particular species of wrong namely denial of ad mission into educational institutions of the specified kind. In the next place Article 15 is quite general and wide in its terms and applies to all citizens, whether they belong to the majority or minority groups, and gives protection to all the citizens against discrimination by the State on certain specific grounds. Article 29(2) confers a special right on citizens for admission into educational institutions maintained or aided by the State. To limit this right only to citizens belonging to minority groups will be to provide a double protection for such citizens and to hold that the citizens of the majority group have no special educational rights in the nature of a right to be admitted into an educational institution for the maintenance of which they make contributions by way of taxes. We see no cogent reason for such discrimination. The heading under which Articles 29 and 30 are grouped together - namely "Cultural and Educational Rights"- is quite general and does not in terms contemplate such differentiation. If the fact that the institution is maintained or aided out of State funds is the basis of this guaranteed right then all citizens, irrespective of whether they belong to the majority or minority groups; are alike entitled to the protection of this fundamental right."
4.5 He, therefore, contended that in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the provisions made are contrary to Article 29 of the Constitution of India.
4.6 He further contended that earlier same issue was raised before this Court in Special Civil Application No.6660 of 1999 and this Court by interim order dated 4.10.1999 directed the respondents to consider the students who have studied in Urdu medium schools upto VII standard, and who have studied in Secondary / Higher Secondary schools with Urdu higher level as one of the subjects as eligible for admission to the PTC course in Urdu Medium. In that view of the matter, the petitioners required to be given benefit of earlier judgment of this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP, Mr.Shah, submitted that State Government has adopted the provisions of NCTE Act and framed the rules and the nomenclature of PTC is changed to Diploma in Elementary Education (D.EI.ED.). As per the new norms, the advertisement was issued. He has further submitted that Rule 4.6.1 is applicable not only to Urdu Medium candidates but is applicable to Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi and English Medium students. He, further, contended that in the rules which have been framed on 26 April, 2012 an exception was made in view of the facts that the State Government has modified the rules. So far as candidates who have studied pursuant to modified rules, they are governed by the modified Rules so that nobody is deprived of the provisos of amended rules.
6. He further contended that the candidates got admission in D.EI.ED (PTC) will be entitled to participate in Lower Primary Recruitment and will be entitled to recruitment in Lower Primary Recruitment (Standard 1 to 5 as a teacher) and therefore, primarily, they have to teach at the primary level and to see that it will be desirable that the person teaching in the medium should have passed on foundation of the medium and therefore, in rules 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 of D.EI.ED (PTC), it is prescribed that the candidate should be entitled to the stream as per his stream of Standard 10. He has further contended that when a policy decision was taken and this Court may not interferer and the present petitions are required to be dismissed.
7. He further contended that in a policy matter, the Hon'ble Court may not interfere and in support of his contention, he relied upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University and Another V/s. Krishnendu Halder and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 606, more particularly, para-17, which reads as under:
“17. No student or college, in the teeth of the existing and prevalent rules of the State and the University can say that such rules should be ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies in colleges. In fact the State / University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or “adversely affect” the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. The order of the Division Bench is therefore unsustainable”.
8. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
9. Counsel for the petitioners contended that this Court has wide power under Article 226 and in view of the observations made in the case of T.M.A. Pai (supra) and different judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court, power may be exercised under Article 226 and the heart burning problem of the petitioners may be rectified.
10. It is no doubt true that this Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but same are required to be exercised circumspectly subject to rules prescribed by the authorities. While considering the rules, the Court has to consider whether the rules which are framed are in consonance with some reasonable classification. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrarily or “adversely affect” the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. The rule making authority while considering the fact that the petitioners primarily have to teach at primary level, fixed the relevant criteria, which in my view, is justified. The nexus which has been considered by the authority namely foundation of language and the language to be taught, in my view, is rational and is applicable not only to Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi and English language but is uniformly applicable to Urdu language. In that view of the matter if any relaxation is made, it will be detrimental to the course as well as the students. In view of the observations made by Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2011) 4 SCC 606, standard fixed by the authority is just and proper. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that rules framed by the authority is just and proper and there is no violation of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
11. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that except respondent No.4 – School, there is no other Urdu Medium School in the entire Gujarat State and therefore, the aforesaid condition may be relaxed. However, the same is in the realm of the decision of the State Government. The petitioners are at liberty to make such representation to the State Government for the said purpose and the State Government will consider the same in accordance with law.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are devoid of any merits and same are dismissed. Rule discharged.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ashish)