Since the common issues are involved in these matters, the same are heard and disposed of by this common order.

2. The action of the respondents in announcing the admissions of the students under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (‘RTE’ Act, for short), both at the LKG and 1st std level in the petitioners-Educational institutions is challenged in these petitions.

3. The petitioners’ schools were affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education and were granted permanent recognition without any grant, by the Commissioner of Public Instructions, Bangalore. These institutions are imparting preprimary and elementary education. Respondents have allotted the students to the petitioners-Educational institutions under RTE quota both to LKG and 1st std levels. The Government of Karnataka has issued the Government Order dated 06.03.2017 (Annexure-Q) under Section 35(2) of the RTE Act prescribing the mode for the determination of the seats in a private school for admission of children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker Section under Section 12(1)(c) and the proviso thereof to the RTE Act. In W.P. No.15631/2017, the petitioner has challenged the said Govt. Order amongst other reliefs. The learned counsel Sri.Basavaraju.S, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the proviso to Section 12(1)(a) to (c) of the RTE Act carves out an exception from the main provision, as such where a school specified in clause (n) of Section 2 imparts preschool education, the provisions of clause (a) to (c) shall apply for admissions to such preschool education. A proviso to a Section cannot be used to import into the enacting part something which is not there, the impugned action of the respondents in declaring both preprimary and 1st standard as entry level of RTE quota for that of Educational institutions run by the petitioners is prima facie illegal, contrary to RTE Act in its entirety including Section 12 thereof. The learned counsel submits that an entry level to educational institutions mentioned in Section 12 (1)(c) i.e. std. I is modified by the proviso to the extent of replacing the entry level to preprimary instead of standard-I. The respondents failed to appreciate the same and have indulged in twisting the very language of Section 12, which amounts to sheer abuse of statutory power. The legislative intendment is clear and unambiguous. It is to provide education at the earliest level in an educational institution. The hybrid procedure adopted by the respondents has absolutely no rationale behind it and adversely affects the children since the educational institutions are asked to divide admission between LKG 1st and std. The RTE Act, and Article 21A of the Constitution of India provides free and compulsory education to the children between the age group of 6 to 14. The petitioners and other educational institutions which admit the students at preprimary level provide free education from the age of 4 itself. Further allegations are made as regards the Government Order dated 6.3.2017 being antidated. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel are two fold. Firstly, proviso appended to Section 12(1) destroys the main enactment i.e., 12(1)(c). Secondly, in giving effect to both, the main enactment and the proviso, the State Government cannot interpret in a hybrid manner other than the enacted provisions. Hence, the Government Order dated 06.03.2017 is illegal. In other words, there is only one entry level at preprimary, if the schools are imparting education both at preprimary and elementary levels, i.e, bound by the proviso, not the main enactment. Assuming if both entry levels are applicable, the State Government has no power to scramble the same in a hybrid manner giving a go by to the legislative intent. The learned counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Binani Industries Limited, Kerala Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, VI Circle, Bangalore a