nd circumstances of the instant case admission to medical or dental Institution by conducting examination in Hindi or other regional languages would be appropriate or desirable or not is a matter on which debate is possible and the acceptance of one view over the other involves a policy decision
It cannot be appropri ately dealt with by this Court and order under Article 32 of the Constitution in those circumstances would not be an appropriate remedy
592H 593A  CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No 428 of 1989
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Dr LM Singhvi N Wazir and D Bhandari for the Petition ers
Rajiv Dutta for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI CJ
This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus 590 directing the Central Government to hold pre medical and pre dental entrance examinations in Hindi and other regional languages as according to the petitioners mandated by Article 292 of the Constitution of India
The petition is by nine petitioners
Petitioner No 1 is Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti which is stated to be a society formed with the aim and object of propagating and ensuring the propagation of the national language Hindi and other regional languages and to further the cause of the citizens of India who are educated in any one or more of the languages and who face difficulty in competitive examinations in which the medium of examination is English only
Petitioners Nos
3 to 10 are the students who allege that they wish to appear in the coming PMTPDT examinations in Hindi or other regional languages and are being adversely affected and discriminated against and will be in a disad vantageous position in the forthcoming PMTPDT examination in comparison to those who have passed the higher secondary or equivalent examination with English as their medium of instruction
The petition seeks issue of writ directed against the Union of India Central Board of Secondary Education and Medical Council of India
It is stated that in the year 1974 there was a survey by National Council for Educational Research  Training NCERT which according to the petitioners showed that out of the students passing intermediate about 925 take their exami nation in Hindi and other regional languages
The petition ers allege that Kothari Commission s report on Civil Serv ices Examination had recommended that the examination papers be set both in English and Hindi and the examinees should have a choice of answering them in English Hindi or any of the 15 regional languages Constitutionally recognised
It was stated that it was also noteworthy that the Kothari Commission s report had recommended that Hindi and other regional languages in Universities would be necessary in order to make use of the best potential available in the country
In 1986 this Court in the case of Dr Dinesh Kumar  Ors
vs Motilal Nehru Medical College Allahabad  Ors  dealt with certain aspects of admission to the Medical College but not on the present aspect
Letters and representations to the Ministry of Health  Family Welfare by the petitioners were made on 23rd September 1988 requesting the Government to consider conducting the PMTPTD examinations in Hindi and other regional languages
It is stated that a letter was issued on both December 1988 by the Government of India to the effect that the Joint Engineering Examination JEE for the five IITs
and the 591 Engineering College of Banaras be conducted in Indian lan guages from 1990 onwards
The petitioners assert that they had received numerous letters and grievances from students with Hindi medium background to press for this instant petition
When the application was moved before this Court on 17th April 1989 this Court had issued notice
We have examined the matter and have heard Mr LM Singhvi
We are of the opinion that the prayers sought for herein are not such which can be appropriately properly and legitimately dealt with under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
The contention of the petitioners is as mentioned hereinbefore that pre medical studies in medical and dental examination should be permitted in Hindi and other regional languages and not in English alone and the admission to the Institutions should not be refused andor examinations should not be held in English alone if the examinees or the entrants seek to appear in Hindi or other regional language
Article 32 of the Constitution of India guarantees enforcement of fundamental rights
It is well settled that the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Arti cle 32 is an important and integral part of the Indian Constitution but violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of those rights by the Supreme Court
In order to establish the violation of a fundamental right the Court has to consider the direct and inevitable consequences of the action which is sought to be remedied or the guarantee of which is sought to be enforced
Mr Singhvi counsel for the petitioners contends that under Article 292 of the Constitution no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion race caste language or any of them
He contends that by not holding the test in Hindi or other regional languages there is breach of Article 292
He also draws our attention to Article 291 of the Constitution which enjoins that any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language script or culture of his own shall have right to conserve the same
It is difficult to accept that in not holding entrance examination in any particular language
be it Hindi or regional language amounts to denial of admis sion on the ground of language
Every educational institu tion has right to determine or set out its method of educa tion and conditions of examination and studies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any casual connec tion with violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the 592 Constitution
It may be that Hindi or other regional lan guages are more appropriate medium of imparting education to very many and it may be appropriate and proper to hold the examinations entrance or otherwise in any particular regional or Hindi language or it may be that Hindi or other regional language because of development of that language is not yet appropriate medium to transmute or test the knowledge or capacity that could be had in medical and dental disciplines
It is a matter of formulation of policy by the State or educational authorities in charge of any particular situation
Where the existence of a fundamental right has to be established by acceptance of a particular policy or a course of action for which there is no legal compulsion or statutory imperative and on which there arc divergent views the same cannot be sought to be enforced by Article 32 of the Constitution
Article 32 of the Constitu tion cannot be a means to indicate policy preference
It is difficult to contend that the actions following from nonacceptance of any policy perspective amount to direct and causal violation of the fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution of India
Court is not the forum to adjudicate upon the questions of policy unless such a policy is the direct mandate of the Constitu tion
It is well settled that judicial review in order to enforce a fundamental right is permissible of administra tive legislative and governmental action or non action and that the rights of the citizens of this country are to be judged by the judiciary and judicial forums and not by the administrators or executives
But it is equally true that citizens of India are not to be governed by the Judges or judiciary
If the governance is illegal or violative of rights and obligations other questions may arise out wheth er as mentioned hereinbefore it has to be a policy deci sion by the Government or the authority and thereafter enforcement of that policy the Court should not be and we hope would not be an appropriate forum for decision
In the background of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of controversy that has arisen we are of the opinion that proper and appropriate remedy in a situation where enforcement of the right depends upon the acceptance of a policy of examination for admission in any particular language to the Institution on that basis is a matter of policy
Whether in particular facts and the cir cumstances of this case admission to medical or dental Institution by conducting examination in Hindi or other regional languages would be appro 593 priate or desirable or not is a matter on which debate is possible and the acceptance of one view over the other involves a policy decision
It cannot be appropriately dealt with by this Court and order under Article 32 of the Con stitution in those circumstances would not be an appropriate remedy
Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the facts that notice had been issued to the respondent
That is true
On a closer examination of this matter we are of the opinion that in view of the controversy involved herein we should not proceed with this application on that basis any further
Counsel for the petitioners then wanted to withdraw this writ petition
He is permitted to do so and the writ peti tion is dismissed as withdrawn but this will not prejudice the rights if any of the petitioners legal or otherwise to take appropriate steps if any as they may be advised in accordance with law
NPV Petition dismissed


Summary:
The appellants belonging to the ministerial service in the subordinate offices of the Directorates of Agriculture of the States of Punjab and Haryana filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking a direction that subordinate offices and the Directorates should be treated as one unit and common seniority of all the employees should be maintained
The High Court dismissed the petitions
Hence these appeals by special leave
In these appeals it was contended that the appellants are entitled to common seniority with their counterparts in the Directorates because their service conditions pay scales and qualifications were same
In 536 order to show similarity with their counterparts in the Directorates it was also pointed out that though a common selection was made for Directorates and subordinate offices yet the appointing authority picked up some candidates out of the select list and appointed them in the Directorates thereby deviating from the order of merit prepared by the Selection Board
Dismissing the appeals this Court HELD 1
The Punjab Subordinate Agricultural Service Rules 1933 themselves made a distinction between the persons appointed in the Directorate and the Subordinate Offices as separate cadres and the subordinate cadre in some cases is the feeder cadre for promotion to the post in the Head Office
In this view by no stretch of imagination the appellants can be considered to be equally placed for treat ing them at par with the Directorate employees for being treated as being in a common cadre
There is reasonable nexus to differentiate the two cadres
Therefore the clas sification can not be said to be arbitrary violating Arti cles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
543A B 11 The fact that the office of the Directorate and the subordinate offices have been compendiously shown in section 6 of the Appendix to Rules does not by itself mean that office of the Directorate and Subordinate Offices are treat ed under the rules as one unit or at par
542A 2
It is open to the Government to constitute different cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to its administrative convenience and expediency
541E 21 The office of the Director is the apex office obvi ously to control and oversee the functioning of the subordi nate offices and the other allied departments under his control monitoring the implementation of the Government s agricultural programmes
It may not be necessary to maintain a common cadre of the employees of the Directorate and the Subordinate offices
Each cadre is a separate service or a part of the service sanctioned for administrative expedien cy
Therefore each may be a separate unit and the posts allocated to the cadre may be permanent or temporary
541F G 22 Accordingly the appellants are not entitled to be treated at par with the employees working in the respective Directorates for giving direction to the respondents to maintain common seniority between the employees of the Directorate and Subordinate Offices
543D 537 3
Normally the order of appointment would be in the order of merit of candidates from the list and must be in accordance with rules
The exercise of power should not be arbitrary
The absence of arbitrary power is the first postulate of rule of law upon which our whole constitutional edifice is based
In a system governed by Rule of Law discretion when conferred upon an executive authority must be confined within clearly defined limits
The rules provide the guidance for exercise of the discretion in making ap pointment from out of selection lists which was prepared on the basis of the performance and position obtained at the selection
The appointing authority is to make appointment in the order of gradation subject to any other relevant rules like rotation or reservation if any or any other valid and binding rules or instructions having force of law
If the discretion is exercised without any principle or without any rule it is a situation amounting to the antith esis of Rule of Law
542D E F 31 Discretion means sound discretion guided by law or governed by known principles of rules not by whim or fancy or caprice of the authority
1542G