The right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution does not confer a right on a citizen to be taught in a particular language.

K. C. AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought the relief of Certiorari for quashing the order of the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, dated 11th Oct. 1979 (Annexure 5) requiring the petitioner to submit his thesis in English instead of in Hindi, and further for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to admit the petitioners thesis submitted in Hindi and to award him the Ph. D Degree.

( 2 ) IN the month of July 1971, the petitioner, after obtaining M. Sc. Degree in Chemistry, joined ph. D programme in Chemistry, in the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for admission in Ph. D. programme in Humanities Social Sciences. " He was admitted in the Semester beginning from Dec. 1971. At the end of each semester, he appeared for the examination and could pass the same to continue the programme by the end of the 4th semester. Throughout, his medium of instruction was English. The question papers were also set in English, and the petitioner answered them in English. Thereafter, in accordance with the procedure of the Institute, the petitioner appeared for the comprehensive examination, which was also held in English. He answered the questions in English and did not raise any objection for being permitted to answer them to Hindi. After qualifying himself in the comprehensive examination, the petitioner, according to the prescribed procedure, had to prepare a thesis in consultation with the Department of post Graduate Committee (hereinafter referred to as D. P. G. C. ). Dr. (Mrs.) Mul-lick was appoited as his guide/supervisor.

( 3 ) AFTER having been in the programme for five and half years, the petitioner made an application on Aug. 3, 1977, to the Director through the Head of the Department of Humanities and Social sciences for continuation of financial assistance. The application was forwarded by the Head of the Department on the recommendation of Dr. (Mrs.) Mullick, who was the guide of the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE period for submission of the thesis was extended from time to time. For deciding the controversy raised in this petition, it is not necessary to refer to those extensions, hence the same are not being mentioned. It appears that the petitioner again applied for extension of time. On the application, the petitioners guide made the following remarks:

"convener D. P. G. C- has recommended that an extension be granted since the thesis is indeed nearing completion but in Hindi. The status of such thesis is still unclear to me. Sd/- Mrs. Mullick. "

( 5 ) IT was for the first time that the guide of the petitioner notified that the petitioner was writing his thesis in Hindi. The application for extension was although recommended by D. P. G. C. to the Senate Post Graduate Committee (hereinafter referred to as the S. P. G. C), but the petitioner was intimated that the medium of Ph. D. thesis was English, which was in consonance with the decision of S. P. G. C. taken in the meeting held on Dec. 4 and 5, 1978. The S. P. G. C. in its meeting held on Aug. 22, 1979, extended the term by one more semester. This decision was communicated to the petitioner by the Convener of the D. P. G. C. by the letter dated 1-9-1979 this decision clearly stated that the petitioner had been given the last extension on the understanding that he would submit the thesis in English during this period. He was warned that if this was not done, the petitioner would be deemed to have withdrawn from the Institute.

( 6 ) THE controversy about submitting the thesis in Hindi came before the Education Policy committee on the reference made by the Chairman, S. P. G. C. The Education Policy Committee, after discussing at its meeting held on 16th Mar. 1979, recommended that the thesis be submitted in Hindi provided it was accompanied by an English translation authenticated by the thesis Supervisor. In view of the decision of the S. P. G. C. , the petiti