The requirement to pass a Kannada language examination as part of the recruitment rules did not violate the minority rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 29, and 30 of the Constitution of India.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by way of public interest by anjuman-e-tarreqi-e-funkaran-e-urdu, Bangalore. The petitioner has sought for the following prayers. (A) quash by writ of certiorari the notification bearing No. Dpar:07:srr: 94, Bangalore, dated 21-7-1997 insofar as prescribing passing of kannada paper for the main examination vide Annexure-b. (B) declare schedule ii of the Karnataka recruitment of gazetted probationers (appointment by competitive examinations) rules, 1997 insofar as prescribing the written examination paper I kannada under the head main examination is ultra vires to the rights guaranteed to the minorities under articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of india. (C) direct by writ of mandamus to the respondent-authorities not to impose passing of kannada as compulsory subject for selection to the post of gazetted probationers. (D) pass any appropriate order as deemed fit by this Hon'ble court. (E) award cost.

( 2 ) IN the body of the writ petition, the petitioner states that passing of paper I kannada main examination part b in terms of schedule ii to the Karnataka recruitment of gazetted probationers (appointment by competitive examinations) rules, 1997 is in violation of articles 14, 19, 29, 30 and 350-a of the Constitution of india. It is further contended that the respondents, by insisting on passing of kannada language in terms of the rules is trying to impose the compulsory study of kannada to students whose mother-tongue is not kannada. This is the only ground mentioned in the writ petition.

( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He essentially contended that the insistence of kannada language affects the rights of minorities.

( 4 ) THE state government exercising its power under the Karnataka state civil services Act, 1978 made the rules known as the Karnataka recruitment of gazetted probationers (appointment by competitive examinations) rules, 1997. Rule 3 of the rules provide for an application and Rule 4 provide for holding of competitive examinations. Schedule ii has been issued in terms of Rule 4 of the rules. Schedule ii provide for scheme of examination. Schedule ii provide for syllabi for the examination part a - preliminary examination compulsory subjects and part b main examination. In that, paper I deal with kannada. It is this passing of kannada examination that is questioned before us as violas ve of articles 14, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of india.

( 5 ) IN the state of kaenataka, reading and writing of kannada is essentially necessary for dealing with official matters. All that Article 29 (2) lays down is that no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution maintained by the state or receiving aid out of state funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. Passing of requisite test in language is compulsory for employment and that cannot be equated to a denial of a right on the ground of ianguage. It is also seen that the aim of the paper is to test the candidate's ability to read and understand the serious discussing prose and to express his ideas clearly and correctly in kannada. We are unable to understand as to how passing of an examination in kannada is in violation of Article 14 or for that matter articles 29 and 30. Article 29 provides for a right to confer the minority to have a distinct language, script or culture of its own. Article 30 provide for a right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice by all minorities whether based on religion or not. The effect of the Rule is only to preseirbe a language test as a necessary condition for entry into government service. The Rule does not purport to discriminate one another and the test is applicable to all aspirants applying for the post in the state of karrnataka. Passing of an examination in kannada in terms of the Rule cannot be said to be in any way obstructive of the right granted under articles 14 or 29 and 30. There is reason

Click Here to Read the rest of this document