SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI C.J.I., G.K. MITTER, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.
D. A. V. College, Bhatinda etc. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab and others (In both the Petns.) Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 353 and 354 of 1970,
D/- 5-5-1971.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. Naunitlal, Advocate with him), for Petitioners (in both Petns); Mr. M. C. Chagla, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. R. N. Sachthey Advocate, with him) , for Respondent No. 1 (In W. P. No. 353 of 1970); Mr. H. L. Sibbal, Advocate General for the State of Punjab (Mr. R. N. Sacthey, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1 (In W. P. No. 354 of 1970); Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate, (M/s. Harbans Singh, and K. R. Nambiar, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 2 (In W. P. No. 353 of 1970); M/s Kuldip Singh and Harbans Singh, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2 (In W. P. No. 354 of 1970). 1732
-held, linguistic minorities cannot claim that University should conduct its examination in language or script which the minority institutions have adopted, but the University must not force those institutions to compulsorily affiliate themselves and impose on them a medium of instruction and script not their own.
-held, if the law does not in fact, infringe fundamental rights the Supreme Court will not decide that question in petition under Article 32.
Judgment
P.JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. - These two Writ Petitions under Article 32 challenge the vires and constitutionality of Sections 4 (2) and 5 of the Punjabi University Act 35 of 1961 as amended (hereinafter called "the University" or "the Act", as the case may be). It is also prayed that (i) the Notification of the Punjab Government No. 5592-ED-1 (2E)/69/12447, dated 13-5-69 extending the area in which the University shall exercise its powers, and (ii) the Circular of the University No. 8617-8661/GS/Misc., dated 15-6-70 as modified by Circular No. 9866-9890/DSG, dated 2-7-70 enclosing the decision of the Senate Sub-Committee dated 1-7-70 be quashed as being illegal, unconstitutional and void.
2. The petitioners are educational institutions founded by D. A V. College Trust and Society registered under the Societies Registration Act as an association comprised of Arya Sammajis. These Colleges were affiliated to the Punjab University before the reorganisation of the State of Punjab in 1966. The University had been constituted in 1961 and by a Notification dated June 30, 1962, it was given jurisdiction over a radius of 10 miles from the office of the University at Patiala which seat had earlier been notified on 30-4-62 as a Seat of the University. As the Writ Petitioners were not within the 10 miles radius of the University they continued to be affliated to the Punjab University. After the reorganisation the Punjab Government by Notification dated 13-5-69 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act specified the Districts of Patiala Sangrur, Bhatinda and Rupar as the areas in which the University exercised its power and under sub-section (3) of the card Section 30th June, 1969 was notified as the date for the purpose of the said Section. The effect of this Notification was that the Petitioners were deemed to be associated with and admitted to the privileges of the University and ceased to be associated anyway with or to be admitted to any privileges of the Punjab University. It may also be mentioned that the Central Government by a Notification dated 12-9-69 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 72 of the Reorganisation Act directed that the Punjab University constituted under the Punjab University Act 1947 shall cease to function and operate in the areas of the very four Districts regarding which the Punjab Government had earlier issued a Notification under Section 5 of the Act.
3. Thereafter the University by the impugned Circular dated 15-6-l970 issued to all the Principals of the Colleges admitted to the privilege of the University, declared that Punjabi "will be the sole medium of instruction and examination for the pre-University even for Science group with effect from the Academic Session 1970-71". Later the University by a letter dated 2-7-1970 informed the Principals that a decision of the Senate Sub-Committee dated 1-7-1970 as enclosed therewith was made giving "relaxation in some special cases of pre-University students seeking admission for the year 1970". This enclosure was in Punjabi, an English translation of which would show that the relaxation was to permit students who had passed their matriculation examination with English as their medium of examination to be taught and to answer examination papers in the English medium at Pre-University level only so long as the other Universities and School bodies of Punjab did not adopt Punjabi as their medium of instruction . On 7-10-1970 the University made a further modification and it was decided by the Senate "that English be allowed as an alternative medium of examination for all students for the courses for which the University had adopted the regional language as the medium. It was however understood that qualifying in the elementary Punjabi paper would, as already decided by the University be obligatory in the case of such students offering English medium as had not studied Punjabi as an elective or optional subject even upto the middle standard
relied on : State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society and Others
Gujarat University Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar
Chitralekha v. State of Mysore
followed : Gujarat University Ahmedabad v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.