Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


U.P.Urdu Development Organisation And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - C No. 27894 of 2000 [2002] RD-AH 34 (10 September 2002)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


[ Reserved]

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27894 of 2000

U.P. Urdu Development Organization through its

Hony. General Secretary and another.............................Petitioners.


State of U.P. through Chief Secretary

and another ....................................................................Respondents.


Hon. S.K.Sen, C.J.

Hon. R.K.Agrawal,J

[ Delivered by R. K. Agrawal, J]

This writ petition has been filed by U.P. Urdu Development Organisation though its Hon. General Secretary Dr. Parwaj Ulum, and  Dr. Parwaz Ulum  in his individual capacity, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the Instruction-4 of the Advertisement No. A-1/E-1/2000 (Annexure No.2)

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to amend Rule 4-(Para III) of the "The Uttar Pradesh Competitive Examination"(Medium of Written Examination) Rules 1994" and provide the question paper" Examination Paper in Bilingual language(Hindi and Urdu Official Language of the State of U.P.) in compliance of Section 3 of the U.P. Official Language Act, 1951.

(iii) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iv) to award the cost of this petition to the petitioners against the respondents.

We have heard Dr. Parwaz Ulum, petitioner no.2 in person  on behalf of petitioner no.1 also and Shri Sabhajit Yadav, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioners are espousing the cause of Urdu Language and Urdu speaking persons in the State of U.P. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the State Government has permitted the candidates appearing in the competitive examination to answer the question papers in English (Roman Script) or Hindi (in Dev Nagri Script) or Urdu (in Persian script) except that, language paper must be answered in the same language and the question paper as a whole must be answered in any of the above scripts and not for each question separately, it has not provided that the question papers shall also be printed in Urdu language. According to the petitioners, Urdu language has been declared by the State of U.P. to be second official language in the State of U.P.  and thus, the questions papers should also be printed in Urdu language alongwith Hindi and English. The petitioners at the first instance took up the matter with the concerned authorities of the State Government and also sent representations to the President of India who forwarded the same to the Chief Secretary of the U.P. Government for appropriate action. However, no action has been taken so far.

The petitioners contend that in the year 1994, the State Government had issued an order by which the compulsory English Language paper from the competitive examination conducted by the U.P. Public Service Commission was done away and in its place a General Hindi Paper was introduced. Since the question papers are not supplied in the second official language i.e. Urdu, it is clear cut violation of fundamental right of Urdu speaking people depriving them from appearing in competitive examination and answer the question papers in their mother-tongue i.e. Urdu as they are unable to answer the questions which are not given in Urdu language. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the U.P. Public Service Commission, in the Instruction No.4 to the Main Examination -2000 had provided that preference for those candidates shall be given for answering the question in English or Hindi, is illegal and violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of V.N. Sunanda Reddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 914 wherein Hon. Supreme Court has held that weightage given to the candidates who has studied  and qualified the examination in regional Telgu language  is arbitrary.

In the counter affidavit filed by Shri Brij Behari Lal, Section Officer in the U.P. Public Service Commission, affirmed on 13.7.2000, it has been stated that the setting of question papers in Urdu language  is not feasible as question papers are set by the experts of different subjects, who send the same in sealed covers to the Commission, who send it as such to the moderators who after moderating, send back to the Commission in the sealed cover. On receipt of all the question papers in the above manner, the Commission sends these papers in those sealed covers to the Printing Press. At no point of time the Commission opens the papers. It has further been stated that the experts of various Universities of Hindi speaking States are generally adept in Hindi as well as English so there is no difficulty in setting of question papers in Hindi and in English by them as is required by the Rules of 1994. It has also been stated that if these question papers are set in Urdu (Persian Script) in addition to Hindi and English, a large number of experts will be required who should be well  versed in all these 3 languages which is not possible. In such a situation the question papers will have to be sent to Urdu knowing people for translation in Urdu which cannot be done as it will be difficult to manage the secrecy. The Commission has further taken a stand that Instruction No.4 challenged by the petitioners shall not be given effect to and in future advertisement no such instruction will be given.

The learned standing counsel submitted that the U.P. Competitive Examination (Medium of Written Examination) Rules 1994 have been framed  by the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It only confers upon the candidate to answer the question papers as a whole in either of three scripts viz. English (Roman Script), Hindi ( Dev Nagri Script) or  Urdu ( Persian Script). It also provides for script in which the question papers shall be set i.e. English (Roman Script) and Hindu (Dev Nagri Script). The said provisions have been made taking into consideration the difficulties in the interest of the candidates and also for maintaining secrecy of the question papers and examination as sufficient number of experts knowing all the three languages and scripts are not easily available. He submitted that the Urdu language has been declared second official language for certain specified purposes and not for all purposes. Thus, the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to have the question papers in Urdu (Persian Script) also. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot enforce personal right to have question papers in Urdu (Persian Script) by invoking a writ of mandamus from this Court in the absence of any statutory or constitutional provisions in that behalf.

After hearing the rival submissions as mentioned above, we find that the Urdu has not been declared the second official language in the State of U.P. for all purposes. Section 3 of the U.P. Official Language Act, 1951 which was inserted by the U.P. Official Language (Amendment) Act, 1989, provided for use of Urdu language as second official language for such purposes as may be notified by the State Government from time to time. By Notification No. 4171/XXI-89-1.1980, dated 7.10.1989, the Governor had notified only the following 7 purposes  for which Urdu language shall be used as second official language:

1. entertaining petitions and applications in Urdu and replies thereof in Urdu,

2. receiving documents written in Urdu by the Registration Office.

3. publication of important Government Rules, Regulations and Notifications in Urdu also.

4. issuing Government Orders and circulars of public importance in Urdu also.

5. publication of important Government advertisements in Urdu also.

6. publication of Urdu translation also of the Gazette.

7. exhibition of important signposts in Urdu.

The U.P. Official Language Act, 1951 as amended by the U.P. Official Language (Amendment) 1989 does not make Urdu as second official language for all purposes in the State of U.P. By virtue of Notification dated 7.10.1989 Urdu language is to be used for specified purposes only. From a perusal of the aforesaid purposes as mentioned above  notified by the Government of U.P. for which Urdu language is to be used , it is clear that it does not  provide setting of question papers in Urdu language. Thus, the contention that the U.P. Public Service Commission ought to set question papers in Urdu language also is devoid of any substance and has to be rejected.

So far  the question regarding violation of pet itioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14  are concerned , it may be mentioned here that the respondents have been able to place sufficient material on record to justify their stand in not providing question papers in Urdu language. The petitioners have no fundamental right to insist upon the question papers to be provided in a particular language or in the language of their choice. They have failed to establish violation of any statutory Rule or Order in this behalf. The action of the respondents in not providing question papers in Urdu language cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.

It may further be mentioned here that in view of the categorical stand taken by the U.P. Public Service Commission that they shall not give effect to instruction no.4 to the main examination 2000 which provided that preference for those candidates shall be given for answering the question in English or Hindi, we are not going into this controversy.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

DT: 10.9.2002




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.