Dismissed

Mohd Shujath Hussain v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Nov 2024WP/21200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ petition challenging Rules 5.3 and 7(i) of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadre) Rules, 2023. The court held that mandating Telugu proficiency for recruitment does not violate Articles 14 or 345 of the Constitution, as it serves the functional excellence of the judiciary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, upholding the Telugu language proficiency requirement.

Mohd Shujath Hussain Vs State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[34111

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21200 0F 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

AND

¶8

Mohd Shujath Hussain, S/o Abid Hussain, Aged about 31 years, Occ_ Advocate, R/o 9-51/9. Bawazeer corony,-siicioi riJir.rtlin-0"i, nlr"rij"n"1?'v District- 5oooo5 ..pETrroNER

¶9

State of Telanqana. Represented _ bf its principal Secretary, General Administration (.t-anU nn) Dep-artment, Se"retriiai fi.'iirOing, iyder;ir"O^-" -' -'

¶10

2 lloh^{court for the stdte of T;ta;taa-R;d*IJnGo"'uv,} rhe-Rlgistrar (Recruitment) Near Govt. Cttv CorreE,-'uaa-ila]--cnarmiriar Htde;;B;j -_ 500066 :

¶11

J The R-egistrar (Recruitment),. High court for the State of rerangana, Near G ovt. C i ty C o I te ge, M a d i n a, C tr arin i n a r, H yo J ia i, ri _s*b ooOo

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court rnay be pleased to issue.any order, direction, or writ more particurarry in the nature of mandamus- i. Decraring Rure 5.3 and Rure 7(i) of the Terangana state Judiciar (service and cadre) Rures, 2023, notified by Respondent No. 1 through Go Ms. No.36 dated 10.06.2023, Generar Administration (J and RA) Department requiring proficiency in the Terugu Language as a condition for quarification to the post of a civi[ Judge and providing'for written examination consisting of translation from Engrish Language to Terugu Language and vice versa without providing for the option of opting for urdu, as being ultra vires to the constitution of lndia and in vioration of Article 14, 16 and 345 of the constitution of rndia and consequently strike down the same. ii, Declaring the Notification No. g7t2024-RC, dated 10.M-2024 (lmpugned Notification), specificafiy crause 6 A and crause 8

¶14

il':"::i[i:::T:1,::-i::':on "^{beins arbitrarv'discriminator} v, irrationat, ::HTrT:iid;:TtT,,t,;;tT:Ij;;:^{j^,::::.#},1:::: " ;:.:-:xi:, : ; : rii,^{T::l;: ffi} : :^j;: :" ;,il ;: rx ; gu or Urdu as a qualification for being a civit .luage and to provide th,:6p1ion to rerusu or Urdu and vice versa in the writtr:, "_"J:H.:::::J#;:r:r the Telangana state Judicial (service and cadrer Rules, 2023. IANo:1OF 2024

¶15

petition undr-r Sr n 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fireo it sue of the petition' the High court may be preased to permit the petitioner ,o''oot' ff ffi r; H n::ll:lfTl jill::il::t^:;,;"J;:xf ik ;; rerusu by providinl; ,;":T:.':,i;JT:,[::i::^'."j'1,".::,s not proRJient in transrate from the E.grish Language to thb Urdu ,., 'n^{tnu written} examination to lnguage and vice versa

¶16

counset for the petitirner: SRr. v. RAfifililflrgr..#l?TcouNsEl REp Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Ms. SHALINI, Gp FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: SRt HARENDER PERSHAD . *, ro'^'Jfjo#,B^gil,5 ! SF?r, " , The Court made the firllowing: OROER

¶17

-::=,

¶18

¶19

SP,J & RRN.J wp_2t200_20?4

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.IESHtrTAR RAO

¶21

trIRIT PETITION No. 2L200 0F 20.24

¶22

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice Sujog paul)

¶23

This petition filed under Article 226 of the constitution challenges the constitutionality of Rules 5.3 and 7(i) of the Telangana State Judicial (Service and Cadref Rules, 2O23 (impugned Rules) which were brought into force in exercise of power under prouiso to Article 30g of the constitution through G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 10.06.2023. The consequential recruitment notification dated 10.04.2024 whidn is making it obligatory for the candidates to be conversant in Telugu 1anguage and scheme of written exarnination providing for translation from English to Telugu and uice-uersa without providing the option of being conversant in Urdu a,d translation in-Urdu is also called in question in this petition.

¶24

Facts:

¶25

2 The petitioner is a practicing advocate and submitted his candidature as civil Judge pursuant to notification dated 1O.O4.2O24. The petitioner has studied in Urdu medium during his schooling and has not studied in Telugu medium. The 12rh certihcate and graduation certificate are placed o., ...orj E

¶26

Iir

¶27

¶28

SP.J & RRN.J Wp_21200 2024

¶29

1 _.:'

¶30

substantiate the same. The petitioner also f,rled his enrolment certificate and ce rtihcate of practice.

¶31

The petitioner appeared in the qualifying examination ald cleared it. After- qualifying the exarnination, the petitioner was permitted to wr-ile the main written examination subject to outcome of the irrsrtant writ petition. The impugned Rules and the notification are coming in his way, and therefore, the present writ petition is f,rled.

¶32

Contention of thr: petitioner:

¶33

Sri V. Raghtrnath, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Mohammed Omr:r Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Rules were introduced for the first time in the judicial service pursuant to an amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 06.0l.2O2O amending the Telangana State Judicial (Service ald Cadre) Rules, 2OlZ (Rules of 2OIZ) (Annexure P-3). The Rules of 2Ol7 did not prescribe the requirement of p roficiency in Telugu language as a mandatory condition. The ArLclhra Pradesh State Judicial service Rules, 2007 (Rules of 2OO7) were in vogue till 2OlZ, but did not conrain any requirement of prof-rciency in Telugu language as a condition for recruitment as a Jr- dicial Officer.

¶34

¶35

SP.J &^RRN,J Wp-21200_2024

¶36

It is calvassed^{that Urdu is recognizedas an official} language under^{Article 345 of the Constitutionpursuantto} amendmentvideActNo.3oof2olTtotheTeluguofficial Languages Act,^{1966 (Offrcial la'nguages Act)' Since Urdu has} been given the^{statusof second ofhcial language in this state' it is} arbitrary and^{unjust innot providingan option ofbeing} conversant^{with Urdu or Telugu in the Rulesfor recruitmentfor} Civil Judges.^{In addition,it is urged that Urdu is recoglizedas a} language of^{Court in 31 districts out of 33 districts in the State of} Telangana^{which is evident from notificationvide G'O'Ms'No'S1} dated 17.05.2022^{issued in exercise of powerunderSection272 of} the Code of^{Criminal Procedure, 1973' LearnedSenior Counsel} submits that it^{was never mandatoryfor the candidatesto study} Telugu and such^{a requirement of being proficientin Telugu was} never pa-rt of^{the statute beforeimpugned Rules came into being'} Thus, impugned^{Rules are manifestly arbitrary and fail to consider} that the Telalgana^{region has historicallybeing a multi- cultural} State. The^{people from various regionsof the countryspeaking} various languages^{reside in Telangana' UrgulangLragehas always} been an integral^{part of the culture and ethosof the State and} State has^{alwaysrecognizeditself as a bilingualState warranting} equal recognition^{to Telugu and Urd'u both' In similarsituation'} t ttre West^{BengalJudicial Service Examinationprovidesthe option} J,-

¶37

¶38

SP.J & RRN,J wp_21200_2024

¶39

of translatir.p from English to

¶40

Bangati/Hindi/Urdu/

¶41

Nepali/Snatali.

¶42

It is further pointed out that teaching of Telugu became mandatory in the State of Telangana in a faced malner only pursuant to th: Telangana (Compulsory Teaching and Learning of Telugu in Schools) Act, 20 18. Learned Senior Counsel, by taking this Court to the counter of respondent Nos.2 and 3, contended that the prin<:ipal reason assigned for introducing offending provision in thr: impugned Rules is that the majority of population in Telangana Sl.ate speaks and understands Telugu language. The State has forgot'.en that more than l5%o people in Telangana are proficient in Ur-rlu. The reason assigned in the said counter is that proficiency in Telugu is necessar5r for eflicient dispensation of justice as various critical judicial process and majority of individuals involve in the process of examination of witnesses, identihcation p,1-ade, recording of evidence, etc., takes place in Telugu. By taking assistance from RuIe 114 of Civil Rules of Practice and Rul,: 57 of Criminal Rules of Practice, learned Senior Counsel submi'-s that there exist enabling provision for translation, and r-herefore, the impugned provision has no basis.

¶43

7 . It is strenu ously contended by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner tltrrt the impugned provision excludes the persons ..-

¶44

¶45

¶46

SP,J & RRN,J Wp-21200 2024

¶47

i !

¶48

profrcient in Urdu like the petitioner from the process of recruitment to the^judiciary. This artifrcial classification has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.^The impugned provision is arbitrar5r and violative of Article 14 of^the Constitution. The petitioner, although IS not questioning the competence of respondents in prescribing the regional^language test as part of process of recruitment to ttre^{judicialservices,} questioning the impugned provision and notihcation being arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.

¶49

Stand of respondent Nos.2 and 3:

¶50

Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior^{Counsel appearingfor} respondent Nos.2 and 3, opposed the^petition on the^{basis of} counter frled. It is submitted that ttre impugned^{provisionbecame} part of statute by considering linguistic demography of^Telangana. Telugu is the first language of at least^77o/o of^populationof Telangana, and is therefore, predominantly used^{language in the} State. All the trial Courts in Telangana handle^{cases where the} complaints filed by the complainants and statements^recorded under Cr.P.C., and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,^2O23 xe predominantly in the vernacular Telugu lalguage. Furthermore, victims in criminal cases often communicate in^{Telugu. Dying} -^{declarations and statementsunder the relevant provisions are also}

¶51

¶52

-.al

¶53

SP.J & RRN..I \Yp _21200 _2024

¶54

recorded in Telugu in order to ensure accuracy and authenticity. Furthermore, rluring criticat^{judicial processes, suchas} identification prr-ades, examination of^witnesses and^{suspects and} recording of evirlence in open Court, the majority of individuals cornmunicate in Telugu. This linguistic^{preference underscores} the need for^judicial proceedings to accommodate and reflect the use of Telugu. The Civil Judges are required to rely^on documentar5z eirrdence which is predominantly written in Telugu. In this backdrop, the use of Telugu language in the^judicial process is not just preferable, but a-lso essential for the proper administration :md dispensation of justice. This decision of requirement of prr6fis1..., in Telugu is taken as a policy decision which does not. violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶55

Learned [i<:nior Counsel further submits that the uires of a Rule can be tested on limited grounds such as infringement of fundamental ri;3lets or lack of legislative competence, but not on the basis of {leged contravention of Article 345 of the Constitution. Article 345 merely confer-s upon the State Legislature a dir;cretion to designate one or more languages for ofhcial purpos()s; within the State. The provision pertains to broader ofhcial language framework of the State and has no e.}.

¶56

¶57

SP,J & RRN,J wP 2t200 2024

¶58

¶59

i I lr

¶60

relation with imposition of Telugu proficiency as a criterion for judicial appointments- Resurtantry, the argument that the Rules in question infringe Article 345 is legally untenable.

¶61

Learned Government preader further submits that the petitioner submitted his candidature and participated in preliminary examination being fully aware of ttre fact that he is required to demonstrate his proficiency in Telugu by passing the requisite test. After submitting the candidature a,d participating in the preliminar5r examination without any demur, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned provisions. In other words, it is submitted that the petitioner with eyes wide open to the criteria of proficiency in Terugu participated in the selection without any objection. Therefore, he is^.estopped, from challenging the said provision in this petition. while filling up the online application form, the candidate vias required to respond with either YES'or TrIO'to the query regarding Telugu proficiency. The petitioner unequivocally declared liES, in response to this query, thereby affirming his profrciency in Telugu. The petitioner subsequently took a U-turn and filed this petition which is not entertainable. For this reason, it is clear that declaration given by the petitioner in the application form where he declared himself to .'^{be proficientin Telugu language runs contraryto paras 3,} 4 and 5 | -- ^ta

¶62

¶63

SP.J & RRN..I wp 21200 2024

¶64

of writ affidavit. It is forcefully contended that requirement of Telugu proficierr(y by no stretch of imagination can be termed as arbitrary and di s,:riminatory.

¶65

1 1. It is furthr:r argued that the scope of Official Language Act is very limited an<l cannot be stretched to the extent suggested by the present petit ioner. The similar question cropped up before other High CotLr Ls on the basis of similar provision of Offrcial Languages Act applicable to such States, but High Courts have declined relief ba';ed on similar gror-rnds.

¶66

The argunrr:nt that the impugned provision creates a class within the class arrd discriminatory tn nature, 1S without anv basis. The provrsion merely prescribes that the candidate who desirous to be,:ome^judicial officer must be conversant with Telugu and suct a rule is applied uniformly for a1l candidates without any arb itraqr classification. Thus, it cannot be said to be violative of Article s 14 and 16 of the Constitution

¶67

i3. It is comr:rrn ground that Urdu is acknowledged for the purpose of Sectron 272 of Cr.P.C. Telugu still remains the predominant lallpage required for conducting effective judicial proceedings and official Court business in the State of Telangana. Countering the rr-gument that Telugu proficiency was introduced

¶68

¶69

SP,J & RRN,J wp-ZlzOO 2024

¶70

for the hrst time in 2O2O, it^{is submitted that this statementis} misleading and contrary^{to record. The requirement of Telugu} language proficiency is in^{vogue for nearly60 years in the State'} It is urged that earliest rules^{werethe A.P. State and Subordinate} Service Rules, 1962^(Rules of^{1962) whereunder Rule 13-A} prescribed Telugu prohciency as a^{qualificationfor serving the} district judiciary. The Rules of^{1962 were supersededand} substituted by A.P. State^{and SubordinateServiceRules,1996} (Rules of 1996) whereuner Rule^{13 also prescribesproficiency in} Telugu language. The^{Rules of 1996 were also stoodsuperseded} and substituted by^{Rules of 2017. Pursuant to the Rules of 2017,} the High court issued^{severalnotifications for recruitmentof} judicial officers while prescribing the^{requirement of Telugu} proficiency which includes^{the notihcationdated O8'03'2019'The} requirement of Telugu^{proficiency was formally introduced in the} Rules of 2Ol7 by G.O.Ms.No.3^{dated 06.01.2O2O' Theteafter, the} Rules of 2Ol7 wete^{supersededand substitutedby the instant} rules. Therefore, it is^{absolutelyincorrectto state that the} requirement of Telugu^{lalguage proficiency is introduced for the} first time in2O2O.

¶71

Lastly it is submitted^{that principle relatingto classification} applies only when two^{identically situatedindividualsare treated}

¶72

¶73

SP,J & RRN,J \Yp 21200 2024

¶74

differently. h the instalt recruitment, a-ll the candidates are uniformly required to meet the same language proficiency criteria arrd pass the same examination. Thus, there is no unreasonable classif,rcation ar-rl there exists a nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

¶75

In nut stLell, the submission of Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Oounsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, is

¶76

that:-

¶77

(i) No funCamental right of the petitioner was breached. (ii) It is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe the languag: in the interest of functional excellence.

¶78

(iii) There ir; no breach of Articles 14, 16 and 29 of the Constilrrtion of India.

¶79

(iu) Prescription of another language and expectation of proficie,rLcy is not unknown to law.

¶80

(") There is. no discrimination or arbitrariness or abuse of power ir introducing the aforesaid Rules.

¶81

In support of above submissions, he placed reliance on the following judgments:

¶82

i)	JudgmentofGuwahatiHigh CourtinSmt.Kumari Artir'.The Stateof Assamr;
i0	V.Rajasekaranv. UTofPondicherryz;
iii)	Anjrrman-ETarrequi-E-Funkaran-E-Urduv.Stateof Karrrataka3;
irr)	U.P.Urdu DevelopmentOrganisationv.Stateof U.P.4;
v)	P.Aruljothiv.Unionoflndias;
.-vil	ShobhitGaur v.State ofMaharashtra6;

¶83

I w.p.1cy.No.ase8 of 201( dated t0.t2.2010 ']^{1998SCC OnLineMad.4l3} t 1999 SCC Online Kari 7l

¶84

12002 scc online AII Ll82 t 2017 scc online Mad3''540

¶85

¶86

SP,J & RRN,J Wp 212C0 2f.24

¶87

vii) Hindi HitraAshak Samiti v. Union of Indiaz. viii) Legal^Attorneys and Barristers r."* r-irI-u] Uaioa of Indiae.

¶88

Stand of State of Telangaua:

¶89

Learned Government pleader for respondent No.l submits that although counter has not been filed, para-wise remarks by way of instructions are received. A copy thereof is supplied to the Court. The stand of respondent No.l is that the requirement of proficiency in Telugu is not for the first time introduced in Tela,gana. In the joint State of Andhra pradesh arso, such a requirement was there from time immemorial. Reliance is placed on the Telangana Official Language Act, 1966. It is further submitted that in various recruitments, Telugu was prescribed as essential language ' profrciency in Telugu is necessar5r for efficient administration of justice. Section 3 of Telugu Ofhcial Language Act, 1966 provides that Telugu Officiet Language Act, 1966 provides that Telugu is the first language, whereas, Urdu will be the second language. The petitioner, while filling_up online application frrled the answer as "yes" against the query whether he has proficiency in Telugu. After having filled up such response in 'Yes", the petitioner is estopped from taking a different view and

¶90

o :0 t8 scc online Bom 2248 ' ( r990)2 scc ts2 I2024 SCC OnLine SC 1838

¶91

¶92

SP.J & RRN.J Wp 2 1200_2024

¶93

challenge the impugned Rules. No fundamentat right of the petitioner is inlr nged.

¶94

Reioinder subm ission:

¶95

tU. In rejoinder, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed heary reliance c,n Rules of 2OO7 to bolster the submission that Rule 21 prescrit,es about 'Tests". A minute reading of this Rule makes it clear that Civil Judges and District Judges in direct recruitment we.:r: exempted from passing any language test and it was expected th:Lt Academy will prepare the necessarSz curriculum for imparting training to the judicial officers. The same practice can still be crtntinued. The proficiency test in Telugu was prescribed for tlrr-' first time in year 2018.

¶96

Lastly, lezuned Senior Counsel submits that although the petitioner has answered as 'Yes" against the entry regarding proficiency 1n Ielugu in online form, the said action of the petitioner was turder compulsion, because if the petitioner would have alswered i - as "No", his application would not have been accepted at all.

¶97

Thus, pronrptly, thereafter he submitted a letter dated o6-.oa.2o24 seekirg modification of 'yes" to "No". The said letGi-is

¶98

¶99

SP,J & RRN,J wp_21200_2024

¶100

duly received by offrcial respondents.^{Thus, impugnedprovisions} may be set aside.

¶101

The parties conflned their^{arguments to the extent indicated} above.

¶102

We have heard the parties^{at length.}

¶103

Findines:

¶104

Before dealing with rival^{contentions, it is appositeto re-} produce the provision of Rules^{which are called in questionin this}

¶105

petition:

¶106

"(5.3t Proflciency in Telugu^{Language:The candidates} applying for the^posts of District^{Judge and Civil Judge} under direct recruitment^{and recruitment bv transfer. must} be able to read, speak^{and writethe Telusu} language fluentlv and sha1l^{pass testas rnav beprescribedbv the} Hish Court

¶107

7f (if The High Court shall conduct^{writtenexaminations} consisting of three^{papersi.e., (I) Civil Law} {lI)^Criminal'Law and (III) English, that^{includes Translationfrom Enelishto} Telugu lansuaqe and Telugu to Enelish laneuase, Ess^ay wr1 Grammar and Vocabulary^{carrying1OO marks} each, having a duration^{as fixed by Court from time to time} for the post of Civit Judge^{(JuniorDivision)and the High the} post of District Judge. English^{paper is divided into two} parts. Part-I carries 3O marks^{and Part II carries 7O marks'} In Partl the candidate¹ s^{ability to understand his} /^her prohciency in Telugu language^{will be assessed'Candidate} is required to translate^{from English .to Teluguand Telugu} to English. In PartJI,^{caldidate's ability in Essay writing,} Grammar and^{vocabularywill be assessed' The Essay} Writing test shall^{be on kgal subjects only' Candidatehas} to secr]re 5O 7o^{marks in eachpart to qualifuin the written} examination: 8^{Providedthat thePaper-III shall be} considered only^{as a qualiffing examinati'on and marks}

¶108

¶109

SP.J & Rrur*.J Wp_2I 200 2024

¶110

secured in t he said Paper-III shall not be included in calculating 1L e aggregate for short listing for viva voce test."

¶111

The bone of contention of the petitioner is that admittedly Urdu is recogrLi zed as second offrcial language in the present State. The notili,;ation dated 17.05.2022 (annexure-P12) issued in exercise of pow:r' under Section 272 of C.P.C. recognizes Urdu in 3 1 districts ou1 of total 33 districts. The proficiency in Telugu became statutory requirement only from 2018. Above points deserve seriousr consideration. However, before dealing with aforesaid points, it is apposite to mention that, it is not in dispute between the palties that before specific Rules came into being for judicial officers, their services were governed by Rules of 1962. Thereafter, Ruk:sr of 1996 came into being and governed their services. In Ru.e 13 (a) of Rules of 1962 and Rule 13 of Rules of 1996, it was made clear that every person who was appointed to a service, after a c:trtoff date, during the probation period must pass language test in^'Ielugu, lailing which, his/her probation will not be extended. TtLrrs, it is not in dispute that the passing of Telugu test was an essential requirement wpto 2OO7.

¶112

The exempLon in Rule 21 of Rules of 2OO7 was given to the category of Civil Judges ald District Judges with a view that proficiency in iit:lugu cal be achieved in Judicial Academy.

¶113

¶114

SP,J & RRN,J Wp 21200 2024

¶115

However, the respondents in their wisdorn decided to again introduce requirements of profrciency in Telugu.

¶116

The ancillary question is whether any such requirements can be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory in nature?

¶117

This is trite that it is in the province of the employer to decide about the conditions of service, eligibility a,d qualifrcation etc. Employer is the best Judge to decide about these aspects. The scope of judicial review on these aspects is very limited. Unless such prescription of qualification, eligibility etc., is violative of fundamental rights, suffer from arbitrariness or discrimination, interference carnot be made. Another view is possible cannot be a ground for interference.

¶118

Justice Amitav Roy (as his Lordship then was) speaking for the Division Bench of Gauhati High^'Court opined that the proficiency in Assamese language is in the interest of the functional excellence and cannot be interfered with. Interestingly, in the said case, the proficiency in Assamese was prescribed by way of advertisement and there was no statutory backing flor the same. Yet, interference was declined by the Court by holding thus:

¶119

'21. Assimilation of language Paper having regard to the purpose sought to be achieved thereby, in the context of

¶120

¶121

SP.J & RRN.J Wp_2 1200 2024

¶122

excellence rn service also cannot be repudiated to^be impertinen t or insignificant. A visible nexus between such prescription and the obiect sousht to be achieved is discernible 'vhich can by no means be undermined.^{In any} view of the matter, the Hieh Court beins the best iudse of the exigencLes of service, it is empowered to^modelthe curriculurrL suited thereto to ensure the desired level of performanr:t 1n servlce , the Grade-III thereof in particular being the f: rndation on which the institutional edifice is as suredly buil:.

¶123

Constitutional and statutory reinforcement in this regard is -raceable to Article 345 of the Constitution of India and^'-tre Assam Official Language Act, 1960. Though the Rules irs such do not disclose the requirement of assessment of the trainees on their^proficiency in the Lanzuage I)aper and the advertisement as well did not spell out the sarne. having regard to the authority and discretion left to the High Court to confiqure the curriculum and administer the^{pre-appointment} oualifuine examination. the^{petitior11:r'splea} of change of the rules of the^game in course of th,: selection^p rocess is wholly unconvincinq."

¶124

The Madras High Court in V. Rajasekaran (supra) opined

¶125

that no directicr s can be issued to conduct the entrance test in Tamil medium zlso. There is no breach of Article 29(2) of tll.e Constitution. Likewise, Karnataka High Court in Anjuman-ETarrequi-E-Furrkaran-E-Urdu v. State of Karnatakae, opined that it is in the, wisdom of State Government to chose to impose such condition f<rr better efficiency of the administration. This will not violate aly rr inority rights.

¶126

The Allahrrbad High Court had an occasion to consider the prayer to prepar,: examination paper in bilingual language (Hindi and Urdu) as per the official language of State of Uttar Pradesh in

¶127

e 1999 scc online Kar 514

¶128

¶129

SP,J & RRN,J wp_21200_2024

¶130

compliance of Section 3 of Uttff Pradesh Official Lalguage Act, 1951 which is pari mateia to official lalguage act of Telangala. The High Court opined that the action of respondents in not providing question papers in Urdu language cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶131

The next reliance was on the judgment of High Court of Bombay in Shobhit Gaur v. State of Maharashtra and Othersto. Interestingly, the following portion of the Recruitment Rules was subject matter of challenge before Bombay High Court:-

¶132

"(d) Knowledge of Marathi:-

¶133

Candidate must have sufficient knowledge of Marathi so as to enable him to speak, read and write in Marathi and to translate with facility from Marathi into English and vice versa. Such knowledge must be certihed."

¶134

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶135

If this clause of rule of Maharashtra Judicial Service is examined in juxtaposition to the impugned rules, it will be clear that there is complete similarity in the rules as well as the legislative intent behind it. The High Court of Bombay considered para No.2.6 of 118tt Report of Law Commission of India. The relevant portion reads as under:

¶136

"2.6 Knowledge of local language has assumed considerable importance in recent times, more so in view of section 2 of tine Official Language Act and section 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 137 (21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ElevCn.Stales have prescribed knowledee of

¶137

'o^{20 tE scc OnlineBom2248}

¶138

¶139

SP.J & RRN,J Wp 2 1200 2024

¶140

iocal lan e as an essential ouaiification. In the rules of some States, a provision is found requiring prohciency in one more [anguil[]e. At least in one state, power is conferred on the concerr.ed authority to prescribe knowledge of a third language too.^''

¶141

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶142

After consirlering the said report, the Division Bench opined that the rule recroduced herein above satisfies the tests laid down by Article 14 of the Constitution ald therefore challenge to the said rule was rt:pelled. The Apex Court in Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of Indiatt came to hold that the prescription of medium of langu age is in the realm of policy decision of the State and therefore th,:re is very little scope of interference. The Apex Court in a rece.nt order in l*gal Attornegs and. Barrlsters Laut

¶143

Firrn v. Union of Indiatz opined as under:-

¶144

"2. The r,:quirement of obtaining proficiency in the language oli the State for appointment to the District Judicial Service is a valid requirement. The judicial ofhcers on rrppointment to the District Judiciary have to appreciate <:r'idence in the language of the state. The imposition o! such a requirement is manifestly proper and, in any everLt ralses an rssue ofo olicv. We, therefore, decline to en t:rtain the petition."

¶145

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶146

The Apex^()ourt in a different context in Usho Mehtq. v.

¶147

Stz:te of Mahctrashtrols, came to hold as under:-

¶148

"10. ...While imposing regulations, the State shall be cautious n l : to destroy the minority character of institutions. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the respondents prevented them from teaching Gujarati

¶149

rt11990) 2 Supreme Court lases 352 L 2024 sCC online 18iE

¶150

''^{(zooa) 6 scc zo+}

¶151

I .--s&{

¶152

¶153

SP,J & RRN,J Wp 2t200²⁰²⁴

¶154

language. On^{the other hand,they are only challenging the} ;;;p"i""ry^{impositionof Marathilanguagefor students} ""J ""f.r"g^{for iright "not to learn" Marathilanguagewhile} living in tle^{State of Maharashtra' The regulation in this} "u"."^{l-po""d by the State of Maharashtra upon the} fi"g"ittl.^{minority right is to rnake. M.ara-thilanguagea} compulsory^{courseinschool sytlabi' The issuefor} resoiution^{here is to find whether this action is reasonable} or not. The^{impugned policy decision was taken by keglilq} i., uie the^{largei inteiest of tht St"t"'becausethe oflicial} ^ara-^{.o.ra.ron -businessare carried on in that State in} Marathi language.^{A properunderstandingof Marathi} language is^{necessary-foi easily- carrying out the day-to-} Lf-"ir"it" of the^{people living in theState of} Maharashtra^{and also for propercarrylng out of daily} administration.^{Hence the regulationimposed} tI^t!' Si"t" of^{Maharashtraupon the linguistic minoritiesto} t ".n it"^{regional language is onlq a reasonableone'} ihi" cor., .il.d^{th"t tlt" iigt't of minorities to establish} "nJ ^a-i.i"ter^{educational lnstitutions of "their choice"} under Rrticle^{30(1) read with Article 29(i) would include the} .igna t" have^{choice of mediumof instruction" '"}

¶155

In the^{samejudgment,it was furtherheld as under:-}

¶156

'...In our^{view the resistance tolearn the regional} t"rrgo"g.^{will lead lo atenationfrom the mainstreamof} iife- r"Irrtting^{inlinguistic fragmentationwithin the} State, whichlt "o "'i'thtma^{to national integration"'"}

¶157

The notification^{dated 17'O5'2O22(Annexure P'12) on which} heavy reliance^{isplacedbylearned.Senior Counsel for the} that it is^{issued in exercise of power under} petitioner^shows no stretch^of Section 272^of Cr.P.C. This PreqcriPtion,^bY imagination,^{provides aly enforceable right to the petitioner to} wriggle out^{of the requirementof prohciency in Telugu'}

¶158

Thus,^{viewedfrom any angle' itcannot be said that the} provision of Recruitment^{Rules called in question are arbitrary'}

¶159

¶160

,,:!,i,t^*|#;

¶161

discriminatory cr violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned Rul,:r; have a rationa_le behind their introduction and a valid purpose sought to be achieved. Since the decision taken by the responderrts is in t]le province of 'policy decision, for betterment of .iudiciat administration, it cannot be stuck down merely because zrnother view is possible.

¶162

AccordingJy, the petition is devoid of merlts and therefore dismissed. No r:osts. Miscellarreous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closeo.

¶163

SD/-MOHD. tsMAtL/ ASSISTANT REGI STRAR.

¶164

//TRUE COPYII

¶165

SECTION OFFICER

¶166

one fair copy to the HON'BLE sRr rHE HoNouRABLE sRl JUSTTCE suJoy PAUL (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) ONE fAir COPY tO thE HON'bIE.SRI JU#& NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal)

¶167

To,

¶168