High Court Karnataka High Court

Wisdom Public School, vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Wisdom Public School, vs State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh


LN ms: HEGH (j()LER’I’ <31: I<lARNA'1'°AKA A1' BAN(}z§L()Rl:L
Dated this the 23"' day ufJuIy, 2933

Before

IHE HUEWBLEMR J£€.S'"I¥CE HUI. £:'V..4DI G I{AM£f}fs'H A'

Writ Pelitims .2()635 ; 293? {Eda}
Eetween: "

Wisdom Public Sshcael

5;: 192, 6″‘ KEB I.a}_-‘om

BTM I Stags, Bangalurc 29 ._ ,_ ._
By ifs Sé:<:»retaI1y'~~ Nisar Ahmaé V' ' '-P§:i§:ié:ner':§

(By Sri K N Subba Raddy, Adv.) V ,_

AIM:

1 State <§7._Karr;a'ta.1§£i'u*" 'if-*5 .

De;3ar1:tn¢nt€;fE(iu<;;afi0,f1%_ ~
Vidhana Séuglhrzs VBaVr.ga1ore»* .3,
V Diragéidr c5fPub!iE:1 zggifuctién
' _ K Cirgie, Bangaiore 'i """

hi

3 %’ ;:«}’pmy Eéublic Inshnction
133-zjg,a1o1’i:. i-3{)uII1,Vv’K”a1asipalyam
Bzmgalore 2 ‘ –

513 §)€1)’;ll}’ of Public Instruction

u .A Baxngalrcwa North, 050 Joint Dkector Campus
» K(§«.1?.ead, Bangalore 1

,5 Ailfiebfyxity Director (}fF’I1bHC Inatmation

, Bangalore Rurai, 050 1%. Director Campua
K C} Read, Bangalnre 1 Respancients

{B§»~ Sri B Manshan, GA)

It appears, the petitioner has moved the Rézspondént-autliaréties

seeking fer ctmrxrnencement of prirnary scheois with Engiish mediu;ii.i”‘af’

irzsmzstion taking shelttar {If the F113} Bench decision 01″ this court….’iii/is’: ” .

Bench has qzlashezi same of the conditimzs in the {irder is§£:3§dv i’

Government dated 29.4.1994 19 the effect that 1,~.p”€:>”:2;:: «pi–i1narf;’.i?3é2i1c;2;tvii92:i;

the institutimzs 311313 impart aducaticizn Qnij; in Kaniiadémédiuraii ‘ ”

Be that as it Ina”): it is the agse a>i’t3}e—-;%:ti’t§£}iierA ihat 1ijz”v’irt:3si:ii<3f"F11Il
Bench dacision and as a zrgmer of impafi educatinn

in Erggiish meditsm wen in priznaryigéiiocliil

It is the isztlmaigsienVV_t$i'-ijh: i(3r<3ii?6rޣneni Advocate that ii is for $116
pe£i£i-twnitr is fiqsproaczti 12% G-::x}'emi§ae;i§iai§*e5h smce aiready their appiication
"met: r:$t£:}'n§4defre_je§ted <)itzit}ié"gr0:113.d ef language poiicy. However, it is

snbfxziftsai ti§iaf.£h'c gérich judgement ofthis cam is a subsequent one.

It is fear Reaptmdent-Govemment ta cansider the appiications of

«i.*:§1:'.é ;:{é:'§i".;riS"<%.5{i:0 are mending ta wmmence prirnary sch-rm-is by seeking

appr§3vé1'jas well as recegnitian in accordamze with law. This scum in a baich

V ' ~. efiiwitjiiifiéfiiians has expressed that these is finalisafion oflanguage palicy by

caf jaégcment of Full Bench dated 12.?.2{){}8. It is for time» petitienez

W'

and Siiith sther persans ti) seek for commencement {if achools

imparting educaticm in English medium oniy train the next acadenmic ye:.;E i§a.

fmm 2989-10.

In that View of the matter, petitioner izi >Ai»Viréw:_é’–«t gasgyxfiiagixv

Government by filing fresh applications. ¥Iow3»°é};__it1’és_ fer thév . MW ”

£0 mke 3 éecision to accard appreval to aging/fie:nce5runVt1ze pflfagmfiaséhools

imparting English as mefiium of irzgsfitzftlciierx,-**’* ‘

In View ofthe Fni§_’I~’$mch §’:’é£:ié’io::é:: of’th,ii;.;._;;o::2’t.~:t’¥{e cndarsement 50

issued by the Qfivemfiiefi;-vrq§eéfing.t§tI2.;;;*3pl§<;ati.on ofthe petitiener is hereby

quashed. Petifiéa is accordizfgijég '.ai1c-yfészi gm.

Sd/-»

Iudga