ORDER
Pendse, J.
1. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the policies and decisions adopted by Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and which are to take effect from academic year 1994-95. The petitioners claim that the curriculum and the pattern for study of languages prescribed in English Medium Schools have the effect of eradicating Gujarathi language.
The Juhu Parle Education Society is registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and runs a school known as Utpal Shanghavi School which was founded some time in year 1982. The school imparts training in English medium and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1009 of 1994 claim that the Educational institution is set up by linguistic minority and is entitled to protection of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition No. 1083 of 1994 is preferred by parents who claim that their children are undertaking education in schools situated in Greater Bombay and where the medium of instruction is English. As the contentions raised in both the petitions are identical, it would be appropriate to dispose of both the petitions by common judgment.
2. The subject of Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, falls within Item No. 25 of List III Concurrent List of the Constitution. Part XVII of the Constitution deals with the subject of Official Language and Article 343 provides that the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in Devanagari script. The Article further provides that English language shall continue to be used for all the official purposes of the Union for which it was being used immediately before its commencement for a period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution and
thereafter if the Parliament may by law so provide. Article 345 of the Constitution sets out that the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State as the language to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State. In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 345 of the Constitution, the Maharashtra Legislature passed an Act known as the Maharashtra Official Languages Act, 1964. Section 4 of the Act provides that Marathi shall, as from the appointed day, be the language to be used for all official purposes. The appointed day was January 26, 1965. Section 5 of the Act provides that Marathi shall be the language to be used in Bills introduced in either House of the Legislature, in all Acts passed by the Legislature of the State and in all Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra, and in all orders, rules, regulations and bye-laws issued by the State Government under the Constitution, or under any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of the State.
3. The Maharashtra Legislature enacted Act known as Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 to provide for the establishment of a State Board and Divisional Boards to regulate certain matters pertaining to secondary and higher secondary education in the State of Maharashtra. Education between Standards I to IV is known as Primary Education and in respect of syllabus or the education to be imparted, policy decision is taken by the State Government by issuance of Government Resolutions on Circulars. The syllabus in respect of Standards VIII to X which is known as Secondary and between Standards XI and XII which is known as Higher Secondary as determined by the Regulations issued by the State Board. Section 3 of the Act authorises the State Government to establish a Board for the whole State by the name of “the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education”. Section 18 of the Act sets out powers and duties of the State Board and one of the duty is to advise the State Governmenl on matters of policy relating to secondary or higher secondary education. The Board is also required to lay down guiding principles for determining curriculam and syllabi and also to prepare the detailed syllabi for all standards of secondary and higher secondary education. Section 36 provides that the State Board may make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act and in particular regulations may provide for the subjects and curriculam for the final examinations. The final examinations are conducted by the Board in respect of Xth and XIIth Standards, and students of all schools in Maharashtra, which are recognised by the State Board, appear at the examinations. Sub-section (3) of Section 36 provides that no regulation shall have effect until the same has been sanctioned by the State Government.
The Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977 received assent from the State Government and came into force on June 15, 1977. Regulation 30 deals with Syllabi and provides that the syllabus for Standards VIII, IX and X should be the syllabus prepared by the State Board and approved by Governmenl with amendments, if any, from time to time. The Regulation further provides that the syllabi shall continue to be in force until duly replaced or amended by the State Board with the sanction of the State Government, and any amendments or changes made therein shall be notified to the heads of the respective recognised secondary schools at least six months before the commencement of the academic year from which such amendments or changes are to be effective.
4. The Central Government had set up Education Commission in year 1964 as it was felt that the development of a proper language policy can assist materially in social and national integration. The report sets out that of the many problems which the country has faced since independence, the language question has been one of the most complex and intractable and its early satisfactory solution is imperative for a variety of reasons, educational, cultural and political. The report recites that the medium selected for imperative training should enable the students to
acquire knowledge with facility, to express themselves with clarity and to think with precision and vigour. From this point of view, the claims of the mothertongue are preeminent. Quoting Rabindra Nath Tagore, the report recites that learning through a foreign medium compels the students to concentrate on cramming instead of mastering the subject matter. It was felt that as a matter of sound educational policy, the medium of education in school and higher education should generally be the same. The report sums up by observing that the Committee was convinced of the advantages secured by imparting education through the regional languages and consequently the development of regional languages as vital to the general progress of the country.
The Central Advisory Board of Education in 1956 examined at length the complex problem of the teaching of the languages in relation to the needs of the country and the requirements of the Constitution and devised a formula known as the ‘Three-Language Formula’ which was somewhat simplified, and approved by the Conference of Chief Ministers held in year 1961. The implementation of ‘Three-Language Formula’ led to several difficulties and several factors contributed to this situation and among those were the general opposition to heavy language load in the school curriculam; the lack of motivation for the study of an additional modern Indian language in the Hindi area; the resistance to the study of Hindi in some non-Hindi areas; and the heavy cost and effort involved in providing for the teaching of the second and the third languages for five to six years. The report of the Education Commission of year 1964, therefore, recommended a modified or graduated three-language formula to include :
1. The mother-tongue or the regional language. 2. The official language of the Union or the associate official language of the Union so long as it exists; and 3. A modern Indian or foreign language not covered under (1) and (2) and other than that used as the medium of instruction. The report of National Policy on Education of year 1986 sets out that the Education Policy accepted in pursuance of the report made by the Education Commission had examined the question of development of languages in great detail and its essential provisions can hardly be improved upon and were relevant in year 1986 as before. The National Policy on Education therefore merely recommended that the policy should be implemented more energetically and purposefully.
5. As mentioned hereinabove, the pattern of study of languages from Standards V to VII is determined by the Policy decision taken by Government of Maharashtra from time to time and which is reflected in the Government Resolutions and Circulars issued. The pattern of study of languages was settled by reference to the medium of instructions in Schools set up in the State of Maharashtra. The medium of instructions available in the school of State of Maharashtra are Marathi, Hindi, Urdu, English, Gujarathi, Sindhi, Kannada, Telugu and Bengali. The final pattern of study of languages available from academic year 1982 onwards is as per the Annexure 1 to this judgment. Serial No. 4 in this Annexure refers to the Schools where the medium of instructions is English and the three subjects which were required to be studied were English, Marathi and Hindi. Serial No. 6 in Annexure ‘I’ is an exception carved out of Schools at Serial No. 4. Serial No. 6 refers to English medium students whose mother-tongue is, however, not English and who want facility to study their mother-tongue. For this category of students, three subjects are (i) English, (ii) Hindi-Marathi (Composite), and (iii) Mother-tongue. The – petitioners claim that the students whose mother-tongue was ‘Gujarathi’ but who had opted for the school where the medium of instructions was English could enjoy the facility to study Gujarathi which was their mother-tongue in accordance with pattern of study of languages available from year 1982 onwards, in respect of Standards V to VIII.
The pattern of study of languages available
from Standards VIII to X from the academic year 1982-83 onwards is as per the Annexure II to this judgment. The perusal of Annexures II indicates that in respect of schools where medium of instructions is English, three subjects available to the students were (1) English, (2) a modern Indian language except Hindi or Marathi (Composite) with Sanskrit, Pali, Arthamagadhi or a Modern Foreign Language or a Classical Language and (3) Hindi. In regard to Schools at Serial No. 6, the subjects available were the same. The petitioners claim that in view of pattern of study of languages available from year 1982 onwards, it was open for the students to take a paper of 100 marks of Modern Indian Language and which could be Gujarathi.
6. Prior to March 1993, the proposal regarding introduction of Marathi subject as compulsory for Secondary School Certificate Examination in Schools other than Marathi medium in the State was under consideration of the Government. On March 15, 1993, the Government issued resolution which sets out that in accordance with existing syllabus, Marathi subject is compulsory for Standards V to VII in schools having medium of instruction other than Marathi. The Government decided to make Marathi as compulsory subject even for Standards VIII to X in schools having medium of instructions other than Marathi. The Government, therefore, gave approval to the language scheme prepared by the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board and which scheme was attached to Government Resolution. The resolution further recites that the language pattern for Standards VIII, IX and X shall be introduced in accordance with Schedule prescribed. For Standard VIII pattern was to be introduced from academic year 1994-95, while for Standards IX and X from academic year 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively. The resolution also gives various directions for implementation of the decision. The resolution sets out that the time schedule laid down for introducing Marathi and non-Marathi should be scru-plously observed by Maharashtra State Council of Education Research & Training, Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board and Maharashtra State Text Book Production and Curriculum Research Bureau.
On September 15, 1993, the Government of Maharashtra published another resolution which provides that as per the decision taken in the meeting held on Juty 19, 1993, it was decided to introduce Marathi subject of 100 marks in English medium schools in the Slate. The Government, after careful consideration, directed that in English medium Secondary Schools in the State, English shall be the first language, Marathi second and Hindi third as whole or composite language. On January 19, 1994, a slight modification was made in the availability of composite languages along with Hindi as the third paper and which clearly provides that Gujarathi can be composite subject along with Hindi for the third paper.
7. In accordance with the Policy decision taken by the State Government, pattern of subjects for the study of languages for Standards V to VII provided from academic year 1994-95 onwards is in accordance with Annexure III to this judgment.
The pattern of study of languages in Class VIII to X as per the new syllabus from year 1994-95 is annexed as Annexure ‘IV’ to this judgment.
8. Shri Dada and Shri Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, mounted the attack on the regulation and the new pattern of study of languages introduced by claiming that Government of Maharashtra is imposing Marathi language on linguistic minority in the State. It was contended that the facility available to the linguistic minority to study the mother-tongue was withdrawn without any rhyme or reason and the students are compelled to study the regional language. It was contended that the policy under the regulation is capricious and prejudicial to the interest of the student community and is unreasonable in teeth of constitutional mandate. The petitioners claim that time and again, they have come across various articles in daily news-
papers regarding proposed changes in the pattern of education and from those articles, the petitioners apprehend that the State Government is trying to undermine the interests of the linguistic minorities by denying the students of such minorities to study their mother-tongue. The attack levied by the learned Counsel and the apprehension sounded that Marathi is being imposed upon the linguistic minority is an empty fear and the bogie raised, as claimed by Advocate General, to prevent implementation of policy decisions and which are taken in accordance with the reports of the Education Commission and the National Policy on Education. The assumption of the petitioners that Marathi is imposed for the first time by the new policy is entirely unfounded and contrary to the reality. The mere perusal of Annexure I establishes that from academic year 1982 onwards, the students in Standards V, VI and VII undertaking education in the Schools where the medium of instructions was English were required to study subject of Marathi as full paper. Shri Dada did not dispute that every student undertaking education in a school where the medium of instructions was English was bound to have a full paper in Marathi subject but urged with reference to schools covered under Serial No. 6 in An-nexure I that there was an advantage to study mother-tongue as the third paper, while Hindi and Marathi was a composite subject. It is undoubtedly true that those students whose mother-tongue was not English but who had opted to undertake education in schools where medium of instructions was English, were given a facility to study their mother-tongue such as Telugu, Bengali, Gujarati, Sindhi, Kannada, etc. The facility available to such students of category under Serial No. 6 was an exception to schools covered under Serial No. 4. It cannot be lost sight of that school covered under Category 5 in An-nexure 1 are schools where the medium of instructions is Gujarati and in such schools also Marathi was a compulsory subject though it was bracketed with Hindi as a composite subject. It is, therefore, futile to contend that subject of Marathi was unknown in pattern of study of languages from year 1982 onwards in respect of Standards V to VII. The change in the policy in respect of Standards V to VII is merely to delete category at Serial No. 6 from Annexure I and the facility to study the mother-tongue available to students who had opted for English as a medium of instructions was withdrawn. Shri Dada submitted that withdrawal of such facility amounts to discrimination because in respect of Schools where medium of instructions is Urdu or even Gujarati and covered by Serial Nos. 3 and 5 in Annexure I are not required to provide Marathi subject as a full paper but can permit Marathi and Hindi as a composite subject. Shri Dada wondered why this facility is not made available to the schools where medium of instructions is English. The learned Advocate General countered the submission by pointing out that in the first instance, the decision is purely a policy decision and it is not permissible for the Court exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution to disturb the same unless the decision is perverse or so arbitrary that no reasonable person could appreciate the same. The learned Advocate General submitted, and in our judgment with considerable merit, that students whose mother-tongue is Gujarati have an option to join a school where the medium of instruction is Gujarati and where such students can have a full paper of subject of Gujarati, but in case the students exercise the choice of joining the school where the medium of instructions is English, then such students cannot complain of deprivation of reading in a subject of their mother-tongue. The students who profess love for mother-tongue, with open eyes joins a school where the medium of instructions is English and then must accept the subjects which are prescribed by the policy decision of the State Government. The learned Advocate General also pointed out that it is necessary and desirable that the students taking education in the State should be familiar with Marathi language as the same is adopted more and more as the language of the administration of Govt. of Maharashtra. It is desirable that the students in Maharashtra learn Marathi and be proficient in the language and the object cannot be achieved if Marathi is not brought
to the position of Official Language. Marathi being the language of Maharashtra, it is the policy of the Government to encourage the language in the interest of regional language and the literature and culture of Maharashtra. As observed in the report of the Education Commission, learning through a foreign medium compels the students to concentrate on cramming instead of mastering the subjct matter. The students where mother-tongue is Gujarati join schools where the medium of instructions is English for the betterment of the chances in the competitive world, and the professed love for the mother-tongue claimed by the petitioners is obviously absent. In our judgment, the challenge to Annexure III on the ground that unreasonableness is not justified and sustainable. It is undoubtedly true that Marathi and Hindi subjects are provided as composite papers in schools where the medium of instructions is Urdu, Kannada, Sindhi, Gujarati, etc. but the complaint that the same amounts to discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution is impossible to accede to. The policy decision is taken by the State Government by taking into consideration various factors and it is not possible for a Court to determine what should be the policy and what is in the interest of the students when even the Commission set up by Government, Ministry of Education found that the problem of language is a complex problem and difficult of solution. In our judgment, the challenge to the introduction of pattern of study of languages for Standards V to VII is without any merit and is required to be turned down. The sound and fury raised by the petitioners about imposition of Marathi is, in our judgment, entirely misconceived.
9. Shri Dada and Shri Bharucha then submitted that pattern of study of languages provided in Annexure IV suffer from serious infirmities. It was contended that the students in Classes VIII to X are deprived of studying their mother-tongue because of the changes effected. Shri Dada did not dispute that from academic year 1982 onwards, the subject ‘Marathi’ was required to be studied but urged that Marathi subject was not a full paper of 100 marks but could be the Composite paper along with Sanskrit, Pali pr Ardhamagadhi. It was contended with reference to Serial No. 4 of Annexure II that in regard to the schools where the medium of instructions was English, it was open for the students to select a Modern Indian Language as a second paper and which could be Gujarati or Marathi composite with Sanskrit, Pali or Ardhamagadhi. The students in such schools were also entitled to select a Modern Foreign Language or a Classical Language instead of a composite Hindi, Marathi, Sanskrit, Pali or Ardhamagadhi paper or a Modern Indian Language. This facility available to students reading in schools where the medium of instructions was English was withdrawn by introduction of pattern of study at Annexure IV. Shri Dada and Shri Bharucha submitted that the students reading in schools where medium of instructions is English and whose mother-tongue is Gujarathi cannot undertake full paper of Gujarathi and at the most can have Gujarati as composite paper with Hindi. The learned Counsel urged that this clearly indicates that Marathi is being imposed upon the students whose mother-tongue is not Marathi by introduction of pattern of study at Annexure IV. The learned Advocate General controverted the submission by pointing out that the assumption of the petitioners that the students reading in schools where the medium of instructions is English do not offer Marathi subject but were desirous of learning their mother-tongue is not only without any foundation but can be demonstrated to be incorrect. The learned Advocate General submitted that number of Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools in Maharashtra State in year 1992-93 was 11280 and out of which as many as 9147 schools were imparting training in Marathi medium compared to only 2133 schools imparting training in medium of English. It was urged that it is only in the urban stations like Bombay, Pune, etc. that the medium of instruction available in the school is English and in rest of Maharashtra, large number of students are trained in the medium of Marathi, which is not only the regional language but is mother-tongue of most of the students residing in
Maharashtra. The learned Advocate General referred to the return dated April 21, 1994 filed by Dr. Sali, Research Officer, Maha-rashira State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, to urge that the number of students who had opted for full paper of 100 marks in Marathi is so large compared to the students who had opted Marathi as composite subject of only 50 marks. The Annexure to this affidavit is revealing and dearly establishes how fallacious is the assumption of the petitioners that the students reading in schools where medium of instructions is English are forced to study Marathi language. The annexure to the affidavit sets out that total number of students in the State reading in schools where the medium of instructions is English was 92,814 and out of them 73,183 i.e. about 78% had offered Marathi as full paper of 100 marks in their Secondary School Certificate Examination. Compared to this large number of students, only 2,626 students which is equivalent to 2.80% had offered Marathi as composite paper of 50 marks only. The Annexure to the affidavit further indicates that out of total number of 1,86,098 students, 1,08,382 students had opted for Marathi as full papers of 100 marks, while only 35,722 students, i.e. equivalent to 19.33% students had preferred Marathi as optional subject of 50 marks. In our judgment, the learned Advocate General is right in his contention that in spite of facility being available under Regulation 1982, even students undertaking education in schools where the medium of instructions is English have in large number preferred Marathi as full paper of 100 marks. The learned Advocate General contended that the students are wiser than the petitioners having realised that it is necessary and desirable to be proficient in the regional language and which possibly is a scoring paper at the final examination. In our judgment, the data provided by the affidavit of Shri Sali is very revealing and takes out the wind out of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners.
As mentioned hereinabove, the statutory provisions of Sections 18 and 36 of the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 cast duties upon the Board to frame regulations to lay down guiding principles for determining curriculum and syllabi and to prepare the detailed syllabi for all standards of secondary and higher secondary education, and which obviously covers the students reading in Standards VIII to X. The regulations framed by the Board cannot be disturbed unless the regulations are found to be so unreasonable or perverse as to offend guarantee provided under Article 14 of the Constitution. The regulations come into effect only after sanction given by the State Government and we do not find any infirmity in the action of the State Government in granting sanction when such data as set out in the affidavit filed by Dr. Sali was available. In our judgment, the challenge to Annexure IV on the ground of unreasonableness and unfairness is without any justification.
10. Shri Dada and Shri Bharucha then submitted that Annexure IV is required to be struck down on the ground of discrimination and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was urged that in respect of schools where the medium of instructions is Marathi, it is open for the students to avoid paper of Hindi because the students can take Sanskrit, Pali or Ardhamagadi as full paper in second language. It was further contended that in those schools which impart training in Matathi, in case the students in such schools have Urdu as their mother-tongue, then it is permissible to take Hindi as composite paper. It is also open for such students to take Marathi as a composite paper. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that if such facility is permissible for students having Urdu as their mother-tongue, then why such facility is not made available to the students reading in schools where the medium of instructions is English. It was contended that if study of Hindi is optional in one case, while study of Marathi is composite in another case, then it indicates that while determining the pattern of study at Annexure IV, the Board as well as the Government of Maharashtra have applied different tests and which are unfair to the students reading in schools where medium of instructions is English. It is undoubtedly true that
while determining the pattern of study of languages in Classes VIII to X for the academic year 1994-95 onwards, there are some variations with reference to schools imparting training in different mediums but such variations are not sufficient to strike down the pattern of study prepared by the Board in exercise of statutory powers by framing regulations and which regulations are sanctioned by prior approval of the State Government. The variations in some cases may be for several reasons and depend upon the situations prevalent in the State. For example, there is only one school in the State where the medium of instructions is Bengali, while the number of schools where medium of instructions is Tamil and Telugu are 2 and 6 respectively. The schools where the medium of instructions is Sindhi or Arabic are 22 in number and Kannada 58. The total number of schools where the medium of instructions is Urdu is 604 in number. The learned Advocate General pointed out that Urdu is medium of instructions in the schools which are in Marathwada region and which was part of the former Hyderabad State. The Kannad schools are predominantly near the boarder with the State of Karnataka. In case, the Board and the Government in their wisdom decided to provide some additional facilities to the students taking instructions in such schools, then it is impossible to accede to the contention that either the facility should be made available to everyone or none. We are not impressed by this submission that in case the facility is made available or continued to be made available only to few, then the denial of facilities to others amounts to discrimination and consequently the entire pattern of study should be struck down. It is necessary to bear in mind that education is a sensitive subject and the Court should be extremely relunctant to disturb the pattern of education prepared by the Board after consultation with the Educationists and those who are in the field of imparting training to the students. The pattern of studies affects the generations of students and merely because some facilities are available to few students, who possibly may be taking education in the schools which are situated at distant places, that fact should not lead the Court to strike down the regulations on the ground that identical facilties are not available to students at Urban Stations, and who are quite affluent. Article 14 of the Constitution of India need not be stretched to such an extent as to defeat well prepared schemes for education only because there are some variations in respect of few students who are taking education in their mother-tongue. Marathi is obviously the mother-tongue of the majority of students in this State and some facilities granted to students taking education in medium like Bengali, Telugu, etc. cannot entitle the students reading in schools where the medium of instructions is English to insist that identical facilities should be made available to them. We are not prepared to accede to the contention that the policy and regulations suffer from the vice of discrimination and are violative of rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. The learned Advocate General referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court. In the first decision A. P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy speaking for the Bench, observed that the object of Article 30(1) is not to allow bogies to be raised by pretenders but to give the minorities “a sense of security and feeling of confidence”. The second decision English Medium “Students Parents Association “v. State of Karnataka, is very instructive. The Supreme Court while examining the rights of linguistic minority and medium of instructions of schools observed that all educational experts are uniformly of the opinion that pupils should begin their schooling through the medium of their mother-tongue. Where the tender minds of the children are subject to an alien medium the learning process becomes unnatural and inflicts a cruel strain on the children which makes the entire transaction mechanical. The Supreme Court observed that the basic knowledge can easily be garnered through the mother-tongue and when the pupil comes to the age, the second language can be introduced. The Supreme
Court while examining the Government order issued by the State of Karnataka in regard to the introduction of Kannada as the first language observed that it should be the endeavour of every State to promote the regional language of the State and the Government of Karnataka has done com-mendably well in passing the Government order. It was further observed that the State knows how best to implement the language policy and when such policy is to bring about academic discipline as a regulatory measure, the Court should decline to interfere. The Supreme Court also referred to the earlier decision D.A.V. College v. State of “Punjab, where the grievance was made that provision for study of Punjabi language was discriminative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contention was turned down with the observation :
“The State of Punjab is created as a unilingual State with Punjabi as its language and if provision is made for study of Punjabi language that does not furnish a ground for discrimination.”
This judgment of the Supreme Court is a clear answer to the contention of the petitioners that providing for a full paper of 100 marks in Marathi for students undertaking education in schools where medium of instructions is English amounts to discrimination. Shri Dada submitted that the decision has no application where facility is provided for Marathi as a composite subject for some of the discipline while denying that benefit to other disciplines. We are not prepared to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court on such ground.
12. Shri Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1083 of 1994, while adopting the submissions urged by Shri Dada, raised some further contentions. It was contended that option to take subject of Marathi as composite with other subjects like Sanskrit, Pali, Ardhamagadhi was earlier available and there was no reason to discontinue the said facility in the academic course for year 1994 onwards. We have already considered the submission earlier and rejected the same as it was found that negligible students have exercised the option of Marathi as composite subject along with Sanskrit, Ardhamagadhi or Pali. Shri Bharucha also contended that even if the policy of the State Government and regulations framed by the Board are upheld, still the interest of the students who arc at present reading in the 8th Standard should be protected. It was urged that the students in the 8th Standard have undertaken the subject of Marathi as the composite subject with Hindi in Standards V, VI and VII and, therefore, such students should not be forced to take Marathi as full paper of 100 marks for 9th and 10th Standards. The learned Counsel urged that the students reading in Standard VIII wouid be seriously prejudiced by application of the pattern forthwith. The submission is not correct because the Government Resolution dated March 15, 1993 provides that the language pattern for Standards VIII, IX and X will be introduced from years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively. It is, therefore, obvious that the students reading in Standard V11I will have at least three years to study Marathi subject as a full paper before appearing for final examination at the end of year 1996-97. It cannot be overlooked that most of the students reading in Standard VIII had already studied Marathi subject though as composite, in Standards V, VI and VII and the enlargement of the subject by providing a full paper of 100 marks is unlikely to cause serious hardship to the students.
The apprehension seems to be more in the mind of the school management and parents than of the students. Shri Bharucha also submitted that the break-up of hundred marks as prescribed by the School Board is likely to cause prejudice to the interest of the students. It was urged that distribution of marks for Prose, Poetry, Grammar, etc. is not identical for students studying in schools where different medium of instructions is provided. It is impossible to find any merit in the contention. The distribution of marks is based upon the level of Marathi taught in the schools apart from the fact that it is not open for the Court to determine the accuracy of the
same in writ jurisdiction. The Secondary School Board is the statutory body invested with powers to set up the papers and distribute marks for various topics and it is unimaginable as to how the Courts can issue writs to direct what marks should be assigned to different topics. In our judgment, the additional contentions urged by Shri Bharucha are not of any merit and are required to be turned down.
13. Shri Dada also submitted that the school set up by Juhu Parle Education Society is one established and administered by a linguistic minority, which is entitled to protection under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. Article 29 of the Constitution provides that any section of the citizens having a distinct language, script or culture shall have the right to conserve the same, while Article 30 of the Constitution confers right upon all minorities based on religion or language to establish or administer educational institutions of their choice. Shri Dada contended that Gujarati language is a minority language in the State of Maharashtra in accordance with the census figures and in the schools set up by linguistic minority, it is not permissible to provide that such a school cannot provide for subject of linguistic minority. The learned Advocate General submitted that the claim of the petitioners that the school set up and administered by linguistic minority is incorrect. It was pointed out that the only averment made in paragraph 3 of the petition is that the Society is unaided English Medium Coeducation School and a linguistic minority educational institution as contemplated under the provisions of Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. The learned Advocate General also referred to the Constitution of the Trust and submitted that there is no material to warrant the conclusion that the educational institution is established and administered by linguistic minority. In our judgment, it is not necessary to examine the question as to whether the educational institution is set up and administered by linguistic minority because even assuming that it is so, that would not make any difference to the challenge to the policy decision and the regulations framed by the Board and approved by the Government. Shri Dada very fairly accepted that even in respect of schools set up by linguistic minority, the students can proceed to the final examination to be conducted by Secondary School Board only if the languages prescribed under regulations are imparted. It is obvious that the students reading in educational institutions set up by linguistic minorities cannot have different right as regards syllabus, in case such students are desirous of appearing at the examinations to be conducted by the School Board. Only those schools which are recognised by the School Board are entitled to forward the applications of the students to appear at the examinations and in case, the institutions decline to adhere to the pattern of languages prescribed by the regulations, then the students of such institutions will not be entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Board. It is, therefore, obvious that the contention that the school is set up by linguistic minority can have no impact upon the pattern of languages to be studied by the students in such schools. The right prescribed under Article 30 of the Constitution to establish and administer educational institutions does not take in its sweep the right to determine which subjects will be taught in such school for the students to claim entitle-ment to appear at the examination of the Secondary School Board. The State Government and the Secondary School Board have right to regulate which subjects will be taught in their schools for entitlement to appear at the Boards examination. In our judgment, the petitioners in both the petitions are not entitled to any relief and the petitions must fail.
14. Accordingly rule issued in both the petitions stand discharged. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Rule discharged.