Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: medium of instruction in Karnataka (Reg.) Unaided Schools ... vs State Of Karnataka, Education ... on 25 June, 2007Matching Fragments
Page 1264
1. This Writ Appeal arises from Writ Petition No. 7596/2007 filed by the Karnataka Unaided Schools Managements' Association. The challenge in the Writ Appeal is against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.05.2007. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition.
2. The only challenge in Writ Petition No. 7596/2007 is against Annexure-F order dated 12.04.2007 issued by the Government of Karnataka, formulating a Voluntary Scheme for Recognised Private Schools which had obtained registration and recognition from the State Government after giving an affidavit of undertaking to run the school with Kannada/Mother Tongue as medium of instruction but later violated the undertaking and the conditions of recognition by running the school with English as medium of instruction. The said Government Order dated 12.04.2007 was issued against the following background:
After the Government Order dated 29.04.1994 was issued, several individuals and institutions applied for and obtained registration and recognition for their private unaided primary schools, by giving affidavits of undertaking to run the schools with Kannada/Mother Tongue as medium of instruction from Classes I to IV. Government granted such registration and recognition on condition that the medium of instruction shall be Kannada/Mother Tongue. However, having obtained registration and recognition subject to the condition that medium of instruction shall be Kannada/Mother Tongue, some of the managements started running the schools as English Medium Schools in clear violation of the conditions of recognition. When such violation of conditions of recognition came to the notice of the Government, inquiries were conducted and it was found that out of 7211 private primary schools which obtained recognition to teach in Kannada, 2698 schools were imparting education in English Medium in violation of the conditions of recognition. Out of the said 2698 schools, in the case of 2215 schools recognition was withdrawn and action for withdrawing the recognition of the remaining 483 schools was underway. But, considering the representation that de-recognition of the schools in the middle of the academic year will cause hardship and difficulties to the students admitted in those schools, the Government issued an order dated 06.11.2006 keeping in abeyance the orders of derecognition till 10.04.2007. The Government noted that more than 3 lakhs students are studying and about 12,000 teachers are teaching in such schools. Government felt that if the orders withdrawing recognition were implemented, the schools would have to be closed down and the students studying in standards I to IV during the academic year 2006-2007 would face serious difficulty if the medium of instruction was suddenly changed in their case from English to Mother Tongue or Kannada and 12,000 teachers would become jobless. In order to avoid such a situation, Government formulated a Voluntary Scheme for such schools and the Voluntary Scheme was introduced through the impugned Government Order dated 12.04.2007.
6. The action taken by the respondents to withdraw recognition of the schools is not under challenge in the writ petition. The challenge in the writ petition is confined to Annexure-F Government Order dated 12.04.2007 introducing a Voluntary Scheme for the schools whose recognition was withdrawn or is sought to be withdrawn. Therefore, the validity of the action to withdraw recognition of the school is not directly an issue in the writ petition or the writ appeal.
7. Admittedly, the schools represented by the appellant have not obtained any order from any Court staying the order withdrawing recognition or the action initiated to withdraw the recognition. In such a situation, the natural consequence is that the schools will have to be closed down and the students in the schools will have to seek admission in other recognised schools and the teachers working in the schools will lose their job. It is to avoid such hardship and difficulty for the students and the teachers working in the schools that the Government introduced the Voluntary Scheme to give one more opportunity to the schools to abide by the conditions of recognition regarding the medium of instruction and to admit the students to Kannada/Mother Tongue medium from 2007-08. Since the scheme itself is voluntary in nature and since it is open to the schools either to opt for it or to reject the scheme, there is no valid reason or justification for the petitioner to challenge the scheme contained in Annexure-F Government Order dated 12.04.2007. In that view of the matter, there was no valid and sufficient ground for passing an interim order in the writ petition staying the Government Order. However, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge appears to have taken a lenient view and passed the impugned order refusing to vacate the interim order staying Annexure-F Government Order, but imposed the condition that at least from the year 2007-2008 instruction shall be imparted to the newly admitted students in the medium of instruction specified in the order of recognition. To ensure that students are admitted for the year 2007-2008 only in the medium of instruction for which recognition was granted, the learned Single Judge directed that individual institutions shall file affidavits undertaking to impart education in the Page 1268 medium of instruction specified in the order granting recognition. In other words, the learned Single Judge made the stay conditional. The effect of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.05.2007 is that the Voluntary Scheme introduced through Annexure-F Government Order will stand stayed in respect of the schools represented by the writ petitioner but the said schools are obliged to admit students for the year 2007-08 only in the medium of instruction for which recognition was granted by the Government. Students who had already been admitted during the previous years and are studying in standards II to V in English medium can continue to study in English medium till they pass out of standard V. Not being satisfied with the sympathy and indulgence shown by the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed contending that the schools should be allowed to continue the violation of the conditions of recognition.
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the language policy introduced in the Government Order dated 29.04.1994 is under challenge in the cases pending before the Full Bench and there is an interim order directing to maintain status-quo and therefore the institutions represented by the appellant are not bound to have Kannada/Mother Tongue as medium of instruction. According to the learned Counsel, undertaking was taken from the appellant's schools in view of the language policy contained in the Government Order dated 29.04.1994 in respect of which an interim order directing status quo is in force and therefore the undertaking cannot be enforced against them. We do not find any merit Page 1269 in the contention. As we have already observed, none of the institutions concerned has claimed that it had challenged the Government Order dated 29.04.1994 and obtained an interim order enabling it to run the school in English medium. On the contrary, it is admitted that, after the Government Order dated 29.04.1994, the appellant's schools undertook to run the school with Kannada/Mother Tongue as medium of instruction and obtained recognition with the condition that medium of instruction shall be Kannada/Mother Tongue. Therefore the appellants cannot claim any benefit or right under the interim order of status quo passed in the case pending before the Full Bench. Moreover, there is no stay of the Government Order dated 29.04.1994. The direction to maintain status quo was only in respect of withdrawal of recognition already granted to the schools prior to 29.04.1994. The appellant's institutions got recognition only after 29.04.1994, that too, with a condition that medium of instruction shall be Kannada/Mother Tongue. Further, in the writ petition or writ appeal there is no challenge against the Government order dated 29.4.1994. There is also no direct challenge against the action to withdraw recognition. The only prayer in the writ petition is to quash Annexure-F Government Order dated 12.04.2007 which introduced the Voluntary Scheme. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim any benefit or protection on the ground of pendency of the case before the Full Bench or the interim order of status quo passed in that case.