High Court Karnataka High Court

Rainbow School vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Rainbow School vs State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2008
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
4_A.ND :

IN THE HIGH ::::oum' ore' KARNMAKA AT BANGALORE.'-_'4¢' f:  

DATEZB mzs THE 29% my my sgmamgeg    %

BEFORE

THE aomsns mmmsrxcg s. Ah§t}L HAzE§:R ~ = " 1'

wan' PETITIGH mo.1o34212éfe7 (Ei)i"a¥-.RI§'a£'.:'k:+=41 '1.v»"V  S

BETWEEN:

Rainbow Schocd __ .

N016: 2"'? Cross   _  '

Mod} Ganzien _    V     
JG. Nagal" Post i :;;j._- 1 .    V   
Bafigalozre '    V      '
Reg by its Scc:*cta:'?;»'_   ¢_  

Suresh  ....  _        ?E2'f'ITIONEiR

{By M/s, M¢1.ju' and  my.)

 .A "Statr=: <;§f Eéfléxnataka

" §,\;:'  .

  86;}.  t'3yV i€3 'SeCretary
' ._ F'rimé1"§*'_*;'§gi's3§:2§tion fieparmlezlt
"sg'idha;t_3.a ' ifirjrfidha
Béz:1ga71ore."'¥ 1

 AA The Bicsck Educatien Oflicer
 _P€i::»~:7th Zone - 3
  Road
g Bangaiora



 "vp:trxi91i€s',3ic=n ;g;'antedVV"tb"Vthe petitioner {(3 start educalianal

 _:£3i;s*¥;i{uticn# has bfififl WitI1drawn,

A "ihfi petitioner hafi filed detaflcd obgmfiens to the show

  caigzse amfice issued by the third mgponderzt. It is furtlatsr

3. The Bepuiy Director
Department of Public: I:1structio1:1$
Bangalore Nzzsrth District  
14.0. Read, Bangalsre  F2ESPC}{*IE}'EN'§TS--_

(83: Sr}; 8. Manohar, AGA}

This Writ Petitien is fikzd undéér  
the Constimtion of India, p;'aying?__tcA',_qL1as1;1i  the ' or;ie17
dt.1S.€}9.2'0(}6 issued by R-3' pzqduccd and
etc.      

This Writ Pciitiol: {:rgming"€§I1A   fhisiiay, the
Cour: mafia the fo1iow:i;z1g_:_  ;  V "  

 Casey has called in qutstion the:

r€1t:r  at §i1'31 eXuz5{:r~E§'- détfld 15.92006 whemby the

K

23.v"£,a5a131eci 801111331 for the petitianfir would contand

in

\

 



conteztnded that the third mspondsnt Withfilli C(}lTiS§,{16I'2§.{1g', "'>,

that objections and without applicatien of minfi 113$ p:a:s~s€rf;{.:'__' L"  "

a cycle-astylgzd Qzder. In this com1ectior1, he has xeligd  t;"3,E- 

de:1': cf this Court in gamma sAsa?fia"v3. '~.8_As.efi>A+;._"7"' L.

SATHYAPPA 65 ANOTHER - .z97'3(1,§3__x'z.,.} :=:7fs_';a»;1:i '' 

vzvzmemzvn sap. VS.  co  _33291§.?2;ié;"' 'A

samaww .£!J:2¥fE?LGPil1E;3IT._.AU2'H{}.fi134i?"' fin o?mE:xs  -

me 20053412 5149. %  _ . _
3. Leaxned AGg¢_.'¢:;__ppe:a:*ifig'  3'§;3r_"t1:}3._Vre;s;{;;{:§'ri€1e:1ts has

sought 1:9 j1:§'s-tiff? th-3 

 4.  csfV'tE::*«Vi;;;g&;3L1gned order shows thai third

Iféapontkzni _'passa::d a cyc1o--$t1vled £Z)I'd£fi'I' Wifl1c)11t

 ap§3l1§ fi31g' .1f;i$VV't;.;5«Vi:3c§.'éfiigis Court in samg 3AsA.9pA's 4:23.56.

w{\§'§1iP1'81}  'c';*11d=..   V,.P.'s C£E£S€. (supra) has

"  tlitgpracticwe of gassing cycle»-styled otderébjs tbs

" '~ s.}LI._i£iS]:?_}iIV1Cii§;?:ii31 authoritisss without applicatian of mind.

(n

1.

Thus, the order impugned is arbitrary in nature arfii.» is

liable to be quashed.

5, it is to be noted here £hat’fl1c:«St£-:6:

had passed 3. Govtsrnment Order in

aiizsbon 2
29.4.1994 layingflthe. 1ang:1ag€~.§><§£icy ta he 'fgl_1ow€:–d that

pzzimazjf and high schools in tI3£3"–SvQ?;.5ai{"4Et é;~-if Karziatawkavv the
medium 0!' instruction tgii' 'a§i'Q§'f :él Stags, A
Full Eench of tI1;i:::s€'C_1111fi’ or
9.12%? 4′ mt KA.R.1\&§TA.Ka1
vs. raga sr4e.12>:”fof.x§a;g§:;ag’AKa, 3? as ssczwmxr,

BEPA_R2§37wAN§”.vo:;?’__;E1§[?€3;é’TION & ozmmrs – me .2003

$3895 igjqglsiderad the valiciit}? of the said

»C%:€!’J€3§{1l§;1;;1€:¥I}_’t’ and quashed the offendmg ciasses 2, 3,

‘£3 8″ ‘thg’ Government Otfifil”.

‘ 6, msulte the writ pizfition succeeds and it is

.,accordfi1;g:1§’ ailawed in part, The ordam at A:1n,e_x:ure–E

“:1. §{;a;1::£e;:1″A_«15.*§’#.20(}6 {gassed by the 1:hi:rd resgsondent is hereby

V’:

quashed. The matter is remittetii back to the A’
mspandetnt for fresh disposal in accordance: with

the light cf fix afsresaid dficisifilfi ofthis-Z. ”

]udge%%%

CS