Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) The impugned amendment is hit by Article 21A, 45 and 350A inasmuch as there is a Constitutional mandate to make in endeavour by every State and the local authority to provide adequate facilities for instructions in the mother tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups;
(iv) The amendment is discriminatory inasmuch as there are two sets of statutory provisions for recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III i.e., for teachers working under the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj and other teachers in the Urban Areas under the control & supervision of Education Department.

50. As regards Article 350A, it is submitted that the primary school teachers are manned to impart the instructions at the primary level to the students in the State and, as such, there has to be an emphasis for selection of only such teachers who are acquainted with the local dialect.

51. In order to appreciate the contention, it would be convenient to read Article 350A as follows:

"350A. Facilities for instruction in mother-tongue at primary stage.-It shall be the endeavour of every State and of every local authority within the State to provide adequate facilities for instruction in the mother-tongue at the primary stage of education to children belonging to linguistic minority groups; and the President may issue such directions to any State as he considers necessary or proper for securing the provision of such facilities."

52. A bare look at the provision clearly shows that it has no application to the instant case, as it refers to linguistic minority groups.

53. Mr. N.M. Lodha, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the contention deserves to be rejected on the short ground that the petitioners have not pointed-out the language of linguistic minorities. In rebuttal, it is submitted that even ignoring the several dialects of Rajasthan, which have been considered by the Census Department as languages of the Rajasthan, there are languages which are part of Eighth Schedule i.e., Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Marathi & Brij. According to Mr. Mridul, they have not been taken into account. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of the Karnataka High Court reported in AIR 1989 Karnataka 264. It is submitted that the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the language of linguistic minorities was not made a part of the syllabus. It is further submitted that ultimately by the time when the matter reached the Supreme Court while almost holding Article 350A of the Constitution to be mandatory, the Apex Court affirmed the decision of the Government by including the linguistic minorities as part of the syllabus. The Scheme for primary education was upheld by the Apex Court in English Medium Students Parents Association v. State of Karnataka (1994(1) SCC 550). Learned counsel has also referred to the State Service Rules of the Rajasthan Services, wherein provision has been made either to the effect that in the course of interview, one of the criteria for success will be the knowledge of Rajasthani Culture and dialect and/or Rajasthani Culture. According to the learned counsel, such a provision ensures that primary school teacher at gross-root level will be able to graduate a tiny tot into studies of subjects which he is supposed to each.

54. In our view, the contention is absolutely off the track. A perusal of the Syllabus, which has been extracted in earlier part of the judgment, clearly shows that it includes knowledge of Rajasthani Culture, History, Geography and Hindi. It further provides that a candidate for the Primary School Teacher in the rural area must have knowledge of current affairs with special reference to State of Rajasthan. It further provides that a candidate must have the knowledge of Geography, History and Culture of Rajasthan. No case is made out to strike down the impugned amendment on the ground of violation of Article 350A. The contention is rejected, as it does not advance the case of the petitioners.