PRIYANTHA AND OTHERS

Vs.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
SAMAYAWARDHENA, J.
CA/WRIT/157/2016

Writ of certiorari-Assisted Schools and Training Colleges (Special Provisions) Act, No. 5 of 1960, sections 5, 6-Assisted schools- Unaided Schools-Education Ordinance, No. 31 of 1939-Education Regulations 1951-National Education Commission Act, No. 19 of 1991, section 2-National Education Policy-Circulars of the Ministry of Education-International schools-Importance of English medium education

The petitioners who are parents of several students of Ashoka College of Horana (a government approved private unaided school) filed this application seeking to quash by way of a writ of certiorari the decision of the secretary to the Ministry of Education that the medium of education of the school should be either the mother tongue (Sinhala/Tamil) or bilingual in terms of the education policy of the government.

This decision was based on section 6 of the Assisted Schools and Training Colleges (Special Provisions) Act, No. 5 of 1960.

It is the position of the petitioners that the government policy in respect of the medium of instruction is contained in the Education Ordinance, No. 31 of 1939, and the Education Regulations 1951 made thereunder, and according to these, there is no prohibition for a government approved private unaided school to conduct classes in the English medium.

The position of the secretary to the Ministry of Education is that although no national education policy has been declared in terms of section 2(1) of the National Education Commission Act, the education policy of the Government is reflected in the circulars issued from time to time by the Ministry of Education and, according to these circulars, a private unaided school such as Ashoka College cannot conduct classes purely in the English Medium.

Held:

1. Section 6 of the Act does not apply to all unaided schools. It applies only to assisted schools which later became unaided "by virtue of an election made under section 5". This school has been, from the beginning, a government approved private unaided (English medium) school. Hence section 6 has no applicability. The decision challenged cannot sustain.

Held further:

2. It is regrettable that the National Education Policy of the Government is to be understood on assumptions when the Parliament passed a law in 1991 to establish a National Education Commission inter a!ia to recommend and advise the President to declare a National Education Policy. Circulars issued by the Ministry of Education are unhelpful to clearly understand the National Education Policy.

3. International Schools have been operating in a vacuum with no regulation, management or control by the Ministry of Education.

Per Samayawardhena J.

"Competence in English is essential for success in today's globalised world. English should not be the language of the urban elite to downgrade otherwise talented rural youth. In my view, it

is hypocrisy to make it compulsory for underprivileged children to study in the Sinhala or Tamil medium, while making it possible for children of the elite and affluent to study in English medium at International Schools or overseas, maybe to maintain a gap."

APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari.

Mahanama De Silva for the Petitioners.

Hashini Opatha, S.C., for the 1st Respondent.

cur. adv. vult.

June 10, 2019

SAMAYAWARDHENA,J.

The Petitioners who are parents of several students of Ashoka College, Horana filed this application seeking to quash by way of a writ of certiorari the decision contained in P12 and to prohibit by way of a writ of prohibition implementation of the said decision. If a writ of certiorari is issued, a writ of prohibition is redundant.

By P12, the 1st Respondent, Secretary to the Ministry of Education, informed the Manager of the school to teach either in the mother tongue (Sinhala/Tamil) or in th