Benjamin Amitkumar Rajkumar vs Gujarat Public Service Commission

K.M. Mehta, J.—Benjamin Amitkumar Rajkumar, petitioner has filed this petitionprayingforawritinthenatureof mandamus or anyotherappropriatewrit,orderor direction, quashing and setting aside the actionofthe GujaratPublicServiceCommission - respondent No.1 in insisting onacandidatetoattemptthepreliminary examination only in Gujarati in respect of subjects No.12 to27mentionedin para 5 of the petition and the Main Examination only in Gujarati in respect of subjectsNos. 13 to28asmentioned in para 6.1 of the petition.By way of amendment, the petitionerhasalsoprayedthat thisCourtmay declare that Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Class-I and Class-II)CompetitiveExamination Rules,2000 at Annexure "B" is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 & 345 of the Constitution of India.

The facts giving rise tothispetitionareas under:-

2.1 Petitionerisholdingthe qualification of Bachelor ofDentalScience (B.D.S.).Petitioner states that petitioner is born and brought up intheStateof Gujaratandheunderstands and knows Gujarati language verywell,inasmuchashecouldread, write and understand Gujaratilanguage. He submitted that he has received education all throughout in Englishmedium,it is difficult for him to appear in an examination which is heldinthe language other than English in the subjects whichthepetitionerlearntinEnglishduring his educational career.

2.2 IthasbeenstatedthattheGujaratPublic Service Commission -respondentNo.1publishedan advertisement No.82 inviting applications for 12 posts of Deputy Superintendent ofPoliceClass-I,57postsof SalesTaxOfficer,36posts of Mamlatdar, 36 posts of TalukaDevelopmentOfficerand35postsofSection Officer being Class-II posts.A copy ofthe advertisement alongwith theformhasbeenannexedat Annexure `A'' to the petition.

2.3 Ithasalsobeen stated by the petitioner that Stateof Gujarat in its General Administration Department,notifiedGujaratCivil Services (Class-I & Class-II)Competitive Examination Rules, 2000 on 19.10.2000.This Rule provide for holding of Competitive Examinationsforrecruitmentto the posts of Class-I & Class-II specified in Schedule I to the Rules.A copy of theGujaratCivil Services (Class-I & Class-II) CompetitiveExaminationRules, 2000 has been annexed at Annexure `B'' to the petition.It has been stated that as per Clause2(c)providesdefinitionof"examination" meansthe combined competitive examination for recruitment to the postsspecifiedinScheduleIand includes of the Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and anInterviewTestreferredtoin Rule 4.Rule 4 provides that (1) the examination shall beheldintwo successivestages namely Preliminary Examination (Objective Type) for selectionofcandidatesforMain ExaminationandMain Examination (Written and Interview Test) for final selection of candidates for the Scheduled postsand(2)ThePreliminaryExaminationandMain Examinationshall be held in such manner as specified in Schedule I.Rule6providesthe medium of the examination shallbeGujarati.Sub-rule2 of Rule 6 provides thattheanswerstothequestionpaperof General English shall be given in English Language and in optionalpapersrelatingtoother languages, shall be given in the respective languages.Sub-rule 3 of Rule6 providesthat the answers to questions on optional paper relating to Sanskrit Literature may be given inSanskrit or inGujarati. Sub-rule 4 of Rule 6 provides that the answerstoquestions on the paper of Geology, Agriculture,CivilEngineering, Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Medical Science, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science, ManagementandPublic Administration maybegivenineitherGujaratior English.Thus, except those subjects ofthecandidates ingujarati,thepetitionerhasreliedupon certain provisionsnamelyArticle 343(2) whichprovidesfor continuationofEnglish Language to be used for all the purposes of the Union for which it was being usedfora period of 15 years immediatelybeforefromthe commencement of the Union which period isextendedfrom timetotime, as per the information of the petitioner, and as on dateenglishlanguagecontinuestobethe official language of Union of India.

2.4 He hasalsorelieduponArticle 345 which provides for adoption by a State any one or moreofthe languagesinuse in the State or Hindi as a Language or languages to be used foralloranyoftheofficial purposes oftheState.He has also relied upon Article 345 particular provisotothesaidArticlereadsas follows:

" Art.345.Subject to the provisions of articles 346 and 347,the Legislature of a State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use intheStateorHindiasthelanguage or languagestobeusedforallorany of the official purposes of that State: "Provided that,untilthelegislatureofthe StateotherwiseprovidebyLaw,theEnglish language shall continuetobeusedforthose officialpurposeswithin the State for which it was being used immediatelybeforethe commencement of the Constitution."

2.5 In view of the aforesaid constitutional provisionsandthefinalexaminationbywhich the candidatesobliged to give answer paper in Gujarati, the petitioner first contended that it is not permissibleby theauthoritytoinsistuponthatthe answer of the question of these subjects are required to be answered in Gujarati only.It issubmittedthatacandidatecan appearandcansuccessfully pass the Gujarati Language examination but he is not in a position to appear inthe papers of other subjects which he has studied in English. Hesubmittedthattheaforesaidrulesis making two groups of one inwhichcandidateforthepreliminary examination as well as the main examination can appear in eitherofthelanguagesand another consisting of the subjectwhichcanbeappearedonlyinGujaratiis artificial,unreasonableandhasnoreasonable nexus sought to be achieved.

2.6 He has also challenged the validity of rule 6of the Rules.He submitted that it is a well settled position of law that English continues to be the official language of the State and thereforethepetitionerhas got a right to appear in the examinations held by Gujarat Public Service Commission for the purpose of selection to Class-IIpostsineither of the three languages namely English, Hindi, or Gujarati.He submitted that therefore providing for onlyGujaratiMediumastheMediumof Examinationamountstorestrictingtheentryof the candidatesbymakinganunreasonable classification betweenthecandidateswhocananswerthe questions relating to any subject in Gujarati and acandidatewho has the knowledge of Gujarati.He further submitted that the administration can always insist of working knowledge of Gujarati as well as Hindi from a candidate who appears for selectionto the posts to either of the classes.He furthersubmittedthatforthatpurposeappropriate provisionsaremadeunder the Recruitment Rules, which provideforpassingofexaminationsof these two languages namelyGujaratiandHindi,afteroneis appointed oneitheroftheposts.Hehasfurther submittedthat the capacity to answer questions relating to any subject in Gujarati and knowledge of Gujaratiare two differentanddistinct things.Insistence of later may not be branded as unreasonable but the insistenceof theformerwouldcertainly be arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles 14, 16 & 19 of the Constitution of India.Hesubmittedthat conjoint readingofRule6ofthescheme/planof examination and the subjects of the preliminaryaswell asmainexamination makes it clear that Rule 6 makes an unreasonable classification which would amount to hostile discrimination against the candidates who seek to attempt the papers in English language.

2.6(A) He has further submittedthatwithaviewto illustrating the hazardous effect of the unreasonableness ofRule6 is that the subject of Law can be selected in the PreliminaryExaminationaswellasintheMain Examination.All the laws in India as well as in Gujarat areinEnglishanditcanbe seen from the Schedule appended to the Official Languages Act oftheUnionas well astheState.He further submitted that there are series ofjudgmentstakingaviewthatincaseof difficultyonly the English Version of the statute would be relied upon for its truemeaningandinterpretation and therefore as a normal practice, it is expected of the students of law to know the law in English rather than in Gujarati. Hesubmittedthatitwould be practically impossible for a person who has studiedLawinEnglish even afterawarding the Degree of L.L.M.to attempt the paper of the same subject in Gujarati language.Thisis only illustrative and not exhaustive,thelegal terminology used intwodifferentlanguageswouldbe unknowntoa person who has studied the Law in English. He submitted that a person who appears for theselection forthepost of Deputy Superintendent of Police must be able to read, understand and interpret thelawsofthe State,moreparticularlythepenallaws which are in English language, compelling such a candidatetoappear intheI-paper in Gujarati language of higher level and also answer the questions relating toLawsinGujarati languageisnotonlyatrociousbutis unreasonable, arbitrary, and againhasnoreasonablenexustothe object which is sought to be achieved.

2.7 Insupportoftheaforesaidcontention,the learned advocate for the petitioner has relieduponthe judgment in the case of J. Pandurangarao Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, particularly para 16 which reads as under:

"If the basis of theimpugnedruleisthata person who applies for appointment to the post of aDistrict Munsiff, should have been enrolled as an Advocate of a High Court, thatbasiscanbe satisfiedevenifthe person is enrolled as an Advocate not of the Andhra High Court but ofany other HighCourt. All the High Courts have the same status, ; all of themstandforthesame high traditions of the Bar and the administration of justice, and advocates enrolled in all of them arepresumed to follow the same standards and to subscribe to the same spirit of serving the cause of the administration of justice.Therefore,in ouropinion,the impugned rule has introduced a classification between one class of Advocates and the rest and the said classification must be said to be irrational inasmuch as thereisnonexus betweenthe basis of the said classification and theobjectintendedtobeachievedby the relevant scheme of rules.That being so, it must beheldthatthedecisionof the Andhra High Court in the case of Nallanthighal Bhaktavatsalam Iyengar (S) AIR 1956 And 14 is not correct."

2.8 He has also relied upon therecentjudgmentof theHon''bleSupremeCourtin the case of Ganga Ram Moolchandani Vs.State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2596 particularly paragraphs 13 and 17 of the judgment which reads as under:

"Para 13 ......Thus for recruitment to the post of Munsiff, there is no requirement that a person should have knowledge of local laws andregional language. Ifforappointmentinsubordinate judicial service, neither there isany requirement ofknowledgeoflocallawsnor regional language, we really failtounderstand howthesameisrequiredfor higher judicial service in the very sameState,i.e.inthe State ofRajasthan.Thus,wefindthat the ground taken by respondent No.2, that purposeof framing such a rule is knowledge of local law and regionallanguagein order to stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution, is fallacious."

"Para.17 From a perusal ofthesedecisions,it appears that thesamedonotsupportthe respondents much rather than run more counterto their submission.Ithasbeenobserved that there should be no interference with the law laid down in the old decisions merelyontheground thatdifferentviewispossible but the Court would be justified in interfering if decisionis manifestly wrong or unfair.In the present case, we have clearly held that the Rules are violative ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as such Division Bench and Full Benchdecisionsof RajasthanHigh Court are manifestly wrong and if the law laid down therein is approved,thesame wouldbe unfair to members of the Bar practising inalltheCourtsthroughout the country, excepting theState of Rajasthan.Thus, we have no option but to hold that Rules 8(ii) and 15(ii) areultraviresArticles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution and liable to be struck down."

2.9 Hehas also relied upon the judgment in the case of V.N. Sunanda Reddy and others Vs.State of A.P.and othersreported 1995 .(2) SCC 235 particularly para 14 of the judgment which reads as under:

"It must, therefore, be heldthattheDivision BenchoftheAndhra Pradesh High Court was not right when it took theviewthatprovisionof saidweightage was in the interests of the State to enable it to prefer personswhowerebetter acquainted with Telugu,beingtheofficial language oftheState.With respect, the Division Bench was not justified in upsetting the contraryviewexpressedbythe learned Single Judge B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J."

2.10 He submittedthatinviewofthesame,the present rule is unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 oftheConstitutionofIndia.When the State Government insisting that a candidate mustanswerother subjects only in Gujarati put an unreasonable restriction on the rightofthecandidatetoappearinthe examination.

Ontheotherhand,ShriS.N.Shelat,learned AdvocateGeneralwithMs.NandiniJoshi,learnedAGP appeared on behalf of theStateofGujarat.Hehas relied upon List IIofSeventhScheduleofthe Constitution.Entry 41 of List II whichprovidesState "Public Service/StatePublicService Commission".He has also referred to Article 309 of theConstitutionof India whichprovidesrecruitmentandconditionsof service of persons serving the Union or a State.Hehas alsoreferred to the fact that in exercise of the powers conferredbytheprovisotoArticle 309 of the Constitution of India.

3.1 Thelearned Advocate General has relied upon the affidavit-in-replyfiledon behalf of the Under Secretary, GovernmentofGujaratin this behalf.From theaffidavithesubmittedthatPart 17 of our Constitution dealswithofficiallanguage. Chapter 1 deals with language of Union (Article 343, 344).Chapter 2 deals with theoriginallanguages(Article 345 and 347).Chapter4dealswithspecialdirectives. He submitted that in view of this constitutionalprovisions underArticle 345 the State may by law adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all oranyofthe official purposes of that State.

3.2 Hethereforesubmitted that on formation of the presentGujaratStateon1stMay1960 the State legislature had taken policy decision declaring Hindi and Gujarati as official language of the state administration bypassingGujaratiOfficialLanguagesActon15th February, 1961.He further stated that the State decided to function in gujarati languageandthereafterphased programmewasformulated from 1st May, 1965 with a view to achieving progressivewidespreaduseofofficial languagesineveryfieldand every level of the State administration a series of necessary steps were taken for its implementationsrightfromtheformationofthe GujaratStateon1st May 1960 till today decisions and directions of the Governmenthavebeenissuedthrough aboutnumberof Resolutions/Circulars with reference to the implementation ofGujaratilanguageintheState Administration. A State level committee was constituted under Chairmanship ofProf.RamlalbhaiParikh,M.P. vide Government Resolution, GeneralAdministration Department dated22ndJune,1977. This Committee submitteditsreporttotheState Government on 30th June, 1978.ThisCommitteehasmade in all 90 recommendationson15aspects in its report keeping in view that theentirebusinessofallGovernmentand Sem-Governmentorganizations may be carried out properly and soundly in official language i.e.Gujarati.

3.2(A) TheGovernorofGujarathereby framed the following rules,namelytheGujaratCivilServices Recruitment (Examination) Rules, 1980.He submitted that in the said Rules particularly Rule 17 provides thatthe mediumoftheexaminationshall be Gujarati, provided that answers to question on the paper in GeneralEnglish shallbegiven only in English language and on optional papers regarding other languages, shall be given in those languages and also provided that answers toquestionon the paper `Applied Mechanics'' may be given in Gujarati or English. Hehasalsorelieduponthe Gujarat Civil Services (Class -I and Class-II), Competitive Rules 2000, particularly Rule 6 of the said Rules.He submitted that the candidate has nofundamentalrighttowritedown answer paper only in that particular English medium.The petitionerhasnolegalrightandtherefore present petition filed by the petitioner is notmaintainableat law.

3.3 Insupportof the aforesaid contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments:

3.3(A) He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of J. Pandurangarao Vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, particularly para 8 which reads as under: "The object of the rule istorecruitsuitable and proper persons to the Judicial Service in the StateofAndhrawith a view to secure fair and efficientadministrationofjustice,andso, therecan be no doubt that it would be perfectly competent to the authority concerned to prescribe qualifications for eligibility for appointment to the said service.Knowledgeoflocallawsas wellasknowledgeof the regional language and adequate experience at the bar may beprescribed as qualificationswhichtheapplicantsmust satisfy before they apply for the post."

3.4 In the case of Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and others Vs. Union of India and others, , particularly para 9 which reads as under:

"In the background ofthefactsandthe circumstances of the case and the nature of controversythatthearisen,weareofthe opinion that proper and appropriate remedyina situationwhere enforcement of the right depends upon the acceptance of apolicyofexamination foradmissionin any particular language to the Institution on that basis, is a matter of policy. Whether in particular facts and the circumstances of thiscaseadmissiontomedicalordental Institution by conducting examination in Hindi or otherregional languages would be appropriate or desirable or not, is a matter on which debateis possibleand the acceptance of one view over the other involves a policy decision.Itcannotbe appropriately dealt with by this Court, and order under Art. 32 oftheConstitutioninthose circumstanceswouldnot be an appropriate remedy."

3.5 Inthe case of English Medium Students Parents Association Vs. State of Karnataka and others, , particularly para 25 and 26 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"Para 25.As rightly contendedbythelearned AdvocateGeneral where the State by means of the impugned G.O.desires tobringaboutacademic discipline as a regulatory measure it is a matter of policy.The State knows how best to implement the languagepolicy.It is not for the Court to interfere."

"Para 26.In a matter relatingtopolicythis Court should declinetointerfere.Inthe result, we conclude the writ petitionisdevoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed."

3.6 In the caseof P. Raghunadha Rao Vs. The State of Orissa and Another, , particularlypara9 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"But the question is whether the rules purpotto debarpersons who are not residents of the State from applying for appointment in the State.It shouldbenoticedthatneitherArt.15 nor 16 prohibits restrictions being imposedongrounds of languagequalification.On the other hand, Art.29 saves the cultural and educationalrights ofanysection of citizens residing in any part of India.The effect of the Government Resolutions referred to aboveisonlyto prescribealanguagetest as a necessary condition forentry into Government service.It is, therefore, open to any citizen to get himself qualified by satisfying the language test.The ruledoes not purpot to discriminate one citizen against another, and the testisapplicableto all applicants. Theneedfortheruleis apparent speciallywhenwerememberthatthe English language is being replaced in educational institutionsand administration is being carried on through the regional language.TheStateis entitledtoselect only eligible candidates for employmentunderit,andintheprocessof selectionthose who fail to satisfy the required qualifications are bound tobeeliminatedfrom selection. Butthe opportunity is given to all anditcannotbesaidthat the rule is discriminatory in its operationagainsta particularcitizenorparticularclasses of citizens."

3.7 Hehas also relied upon the judgment in the case of Sunil K.R. Sahastrabudhey Vs. Director, I.I.T., Kanpur, particularly paragraphs 12 and 18 which reads as under:

"Para 12.The Article of the Constitution relied upon by the petitioner is Article 19(1)(a), which provides that all citizens shall havetheright to freedomof speech and expression.It is from this right of expression that thecounselurged thatthepetitioner had the right to submit his thesis inHindi.Theright of expression conferredby Article 19(1)(a) cannot be extended to the conferment of right on a citizentoread and study in a particular language that he wants. Therightof expression has a different meaning and is not open for being adopted in the language otherthanthatwhich is the medium of instructionintheCollegewhere admission is sought.Reference in this connection may be made to Arts. 29 and 30."

"Para 18.Article 345 providesthattheState canadoptby legislation any one or more of the languages for use in the State orHindiasthe languageorlanguages to be used for all or any of the official purposes oftheState.Under thisArticle,therefore, that language which is adopted by the State must beusedforofficial purposes. Themere fact of adopting a language by a State as theOfficiallanguagewouldnot entitleany student to receive education in that language and not in the one which isthemedium of instruction adoptedbytheinstitution. Although Hindi has been declared as thenational language,nostudentgettingeducationin an institution run under a Central Act can force the institution to impart education to himinHindi in Devnagriscript. It is for the Government concerned to make suitable amendments in thelaw which maycompeltheinstitutiontoimpart education in the national language."

3.8 He has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Krishnan Kakkanth Vs. Government of Kerala and ohters, particularly para 34 which reads as under:

"To ascertain unreasonableness andarbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government.It is immaterialifa betterormorecomprehensivepolicydecision could have been taken.It is equallyimmaterial if it can be demostrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which suchdecisionhas been taken.Unless the policy decisionisdemonstrablycapriciousor arbitrary and notinformedbyanyreasons whatsoeveroritsuffersfromthevice of discrimination or infringes anystatueor provisionsoftheConstitution, the policy decision cannotbestruckdown. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a publicpolicyinthecontextof illegalityand unconstitutionality, Court should avoid "embarking onunchartedoceanofpublic policy."

3.9 Inviewofthesame,hesubmittedthat the working ofthesubjectinthegujaratilanguageis essentialasGovernmentissued circulars/notifications all in Gujarati and namely all orders will bepassedin Gujaratilanguage and therefore it is essential that the candidate must have knowledgeofgujaratilanguagein this behalf.

Inmyviewtheargument of the petitioner can also be considered in the different aspect.Part17of our Constitution deals with official language.Chapter 1 deals with language of Union (Article 343, 344).Article 345 providesofficial language or languages of a State. This article empowers the legislatureoftheStateto adopt Hindi or any State language as official language of that State.Inthisbehalf the State legislature has also provided under rules that examination has tobein gujarati. Article 346 providesofficial language for communication between one State and another or betweena State andtheUnion.Article 347 providesspecial provision relating to language spoken by a section of the population of a State.Article 350 provides languageto beusedinrepresentationsfor redress of grievances. Article 350-A providesfacilitiesforinstructionin mother tongue at primary stage.Article 351 provides for directive fordevelopmentoftheHindi language.All these articles also lead to the conclusion that the State legislature has power to prescribe and enact the lawand bythatlawcanprescribe that the State to adopt any official language of the State.As indicated earlier the State of Gujarat hasprescribedGuajaratiasofficial languagesoStatecanprescribethatcandidatesin competitive examination has to answerbookinGujarati language. 4.1 Ihave considered the submissions of the learned advocate for the petitioner and the authorities citedby him. Ihavealsoconsideredthesubmissions of the learned Advocate General and also theauthoritiescited by him.Inmyviewthelegislaturecanperfectly prescribed that in the civil services the examination can be answered in certain subjects in gujarati only.Inmy view whether to prescribe languagegujaratifor examinationpointofviewisaquestionofpolicy concerned oftheGovernment.The question of policy is essentially for the State to decide.Such policy depends uponanumberofcircumstancesand it is neither desirablenoradvisableforthecourtsto direct or sermonize the Government toadoptaparticularpolicy which theCourtdeemsfitandproper.In short, the Court cannot be propelled into the uncharteredoceanof Government policy. Bennett Coleman and Co. and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .

4.2 Inmy view, the petitioner has neither fundamental right nor legal right that he can answer only in englishlanguage and not in gujarati language.In my view when the Government has already passed theGujarati Official Languages Act on 15th February, 1961 and started functioninginGujarati and thereafter phased programme wasformulatedfrom1stMay,1965withaviewto achieving progressive widespreaduseofofficial languages in every field and everyleveloftheState Administration a series of necessary steps were taken for its implementations.In my view right from the formation oftheGujaratStateon1stMay,1960tilltoday decisions and directionsoftheGovernmenthavebeen issued through about number of Resolutions/Circulars with referencetothe implementation of Gujarati language in the State Administration.As theStateGovernmenthas takenapolicydecisionthatentirebusiness of all GovernmentandSemi-Governmentorganizationsmay be carriedoutproperlyandsoundly in regional language i.e.GujaratiandwhenGovernmentaccepted recommendationofCommitteeandGovernmenthasalso issuedresolutions and taken decision that all CompetitiveExaminationswhether written or oral should be in Gujarati medium, there is no need of givingoption of Hindi or English in the Public Service Commission.In my view therefore the contention raised by the petitioner hasnosubstanceand Rule 6 provides proper safeguards and it has prescribed that in certainpaperscandidates cananswerinenglishlanguage and the said rules has validclassificationandthesaidrulescannot be declared as arbitrary, illegal or violative of Article 14 of theConstitutionofIndia.In fact there cannot be any alleged violative act because therulesappliesto all persons who are entering in examination and therefore there is no discrimination in this behalf.

Inview of the discussions made hereinabove, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Rule is discharged.