Judgment :- Petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from abolishing or closing B.A. Sanskrit main Course in 2nd respondent-College. 2. Affidavit filed in support of this writ petition is sworn to by father and natural guardian of petitioner, wherein it is stated that petitioner is the younger daughter of the deponent. 2nd respondent is an Institution aided by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It has been in existence for more than a century. It is further said that the 2nd respondent-College is teaching Sanskrit not only as second language, but it has also a separate degree for Sanskrit language alone. Petitioner and his family members are devout Hindus with a humble background and conservative outlook. It is said that they attach great importance to old values, and first daughter of the deponent is also a student of 2nd respondent-College in B.A. Sanskrit. Petitioner wanted his younger daughter also to join the 2nd respondent-College. So, on 22-5-98, he went to the College to obtain an application form for admitting his second daughter in B.A. Sanskrit Course. But he was informed that the 1st respondent has passed an order directing the 2nd respondent to close down B.A. Sanskrit with effect from Academic Year 1998-99. The Principal of 2nd respondent-College expressed her inability to issue application form. It is said that at least from 1918 admission is given to the said Course with Sanskrit as major, i.e., Part I Language, which is around 25, and the strength of students who take Sanskrit as major would be around 10. The result of abolition is that neither Sanskrit is available to students as Part I language nor as major. So, none of the students who have passed out + 2 Examination with Sanskrit as second language could get admission into the 2nd respondent-College with Sanskrit as Part I language or as major. Therefore, the entry of girl students is closed for ever. It is said that the decision to close down the Course is against the Policy of the Government of India, and it is a retrograde step in the advancement of Sanskrit which has been recognised and lauded as the oldest one. The very cultural heritage of India is rock based on this language. It is said that the policy of the Central Government was throughout to further the promotion of Sanskrit. The very cultural heritage of India is rock based on this language. It is said that the policy of the Central Government was throughout to further the promotion of Sanskrit. Sanskrit is the fountain source of Indian culture, and it is the store-house of immeasurable wealth which is an indispensable asset for regaining India's status in the world. The abolition of the Course is certainly against the educational policy of the Government of India. It is said that there is no reasonable cause for directing the abolition of the Course once and for all in the 2nd respondent-Institution. Monetary constraint could not be a reasonable ground for such abolition. Firstly in imparting education, the theory of quid pro quo or any allied consideration could not be the basis, for, it is the duty of the Government to import education. In the famous Unnikrishnan's case, the Supreme Court has held that at least elementary education is a fundamental right. Secondly, the Government of India has formulated a Scheme by which 100% financial assistance is given under various heads for promotion of Sanskrit, and one such is a grant to State Government for development and propagation of Sanskrit. The intention of the Union Government is to give much assistance for the propagation of Sanskrit Language and, therefore, the attempt now made to discontinue the Course is not a valid decision taken by the State Government. It is said that life and livelihood necessarily include cultural heritage and its preservation. As a welfare State, the Government is bound to extend its helping hand at least by imparting languages and arts which would promote the preservation of such heritage. 3. When the matter came for admission, I directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice. In response to that, he produced the file in order to satisfy the Court that the policy decision taken by the Government is not without any basis, nor is it an arbitrary exercise of power. There were some materials placed before the State Government so as to take a policy decision to shift the said Course to another College about 1 km. away on the same road. It was further said that it was not only in respect of Sanskrit Language, but also in respect of some other Courses, the Government has taken similar decision. There were some materials placed before the State Government so as to take a policy decision to shift the said Course to another College about 1 km. away on the same road. It was further said that it was not only in respect of Sanskrit Language, but also in respect of some other Courses, the Government has taken similar decision. It is further said that so long as the policy decision of the Government is not challenged on the grounds of mala fides, arbitrariness or irrationality, the same is not liable to be reviewed by this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that Sanskrit is an ancient language and mother of all languages. The Government of India is giving maximum encouragement for teaching that language and it is also giving 100% grant to the States which encourage the study of Sanskrit. It is further said that for nearly a century, Sanskrit language was being taught in 2nd respondent-Institution, and there is no reason why all of a sudden the Government should think of closing down the Course from this Academic Year. It is further said that the petitioner has a legitimate expectation of joining the Course in 2nd respondent-College where her elder sister is also studying the same Course, and this is the only Women's College where this Course is being taught. It is also said that all along the Policy of the Government is to segregate women's education, and now, due to abolition of the Course, petitioner is compelled to join a mixed College, and, being a student hailing from a conservative family, she wants to continue her studies in Sanskrit only in this College. It is further said that the Government cannot expect a reciprocal benefit or a quid pro quo in education. It is really a mission, and since it is one of the duties of the State to impart education, cancellation of a Course of ancient language is not correct. 5. As against the said contentions of learned Counsel for petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of the Government that it has not diluted the importance of Sanskrit language. In 1997, instructions were issued to various Departments to get statistics from those Colleges where students have not sought admission even for 50% of the sanctioned seats. 5. As against the said contentions of learned Counsel for petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of the Government that it has not diluted the importance of Sanskrit language. In 1997, instructions were issued to various Departments to get statistics from those Colleges where students have not sought admission even for 50% of the sanctioned seats. Statistics were taken in respect of various languages and other Courses of Studies, and one such language happened to be Sanskrit. Uniform decision was taken in regard to those Colleges where admission was less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. It was found that students seeking admission for Courses in Sanskrit, Telegu, Tamil, etc., in some Colleges were far below 50% of sanctioned seats and, therefore, those Courses were directed to be studied in some other Colleges, taking into consideration the convenience of students also. A similar decision was taken in respect of some Courses like Economics, Statistics, History, etc. where also the Course of Study was transferred to other Institutions. Petitioner has no right to claim that she will undergo the Course only in a particular College, and it is not a case of abolition of the Course but only shifting of the Course from one Institution to another Institution. # It is purely a policy decision taken by the State Government. Even if it is conceded that education is a mission, nobody has a right to claim that he will undergo a Course only from a particular Institution. The old conservative theory has also no place where females have occupied various high positions, in various fields. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on the decision reported in (Santosh Kumar v. Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development). He laid much stress on paragraphs 8 to 13 of that judgment, wherein Their Lordships have considered the importance of Sanskrit language and how far the Indian Civilization is based on that language. Those paragraphs read thus :- "We may now advert to the broad framework of our education policy as accepted by the Central Government. For our purpose it would be enough if we refer to the policies as formulated in 1968 and 1986. Here again, we would confine our attention to what was stated in these policies regarding Sanskrit. Those paragraphs read thus :- "We may now advert to the broad framework of our education policy as accepted by the Central Government. For our purpose it would be enough if we refer to the policies as formulated in 1968 and 1986. Here again, we would confine our attention to what was stated in these policies regarding Sanskrit. In the 1968 policy the following found place qua this language : " Considering the special importance of Sanskrit to the growth and development of Indian languages and its unique contribution to the cultural unity of the country, facilities for its teaching at the school and university stages should be offered on more liberal basis. Development of new methods of teaching the language should be encouraged, and the possibility explored of including the study of Sanskrit in those Courses (such as modern Indian philosophy) at the first and second degree stages, where such knowledge is useful. " The 1986 policy has to say as below in this regard in para 5.33 : "Research in Indology, the Humanities and Social Sciences will receive adequate support. To fulfil the need for the synthesis of knowledge, inter-disciplinary research will be encouraged. Efforts will be made to delve into India's ancient fund of knowledge and to relate it to contemporary reality. This effort will imply the development of facilities for the intensive study of Sanskrit. " (Emphasis as in original) It would be of some interest to note that when Sir William Jones, one of the most brilliant men of 18th Century, came to India in 1783 as a Judge of the then Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort Williams in Bengal, he got interested to learn Sanskrit and it grew so strong that within six years he not only became the master of the language but translated Kalidas's Shakuntala. After about two hundred years it has fallen to the Judges of the present Supreme Court to highlight the importance of Sanskrit and to see that it finds its due place in the niche of our national life. Place of Sanskrit in our Educational Ethos. It is well-known that Sanskrit is a mother of all Indo-Aryan languages and it is this language in which our Vedas, Puranas and Upanishadas have been written and in which Kalidas, Bhavbuti, Banbhatta and Dandi wrote their classics. Place of Sanskrit in our Educational Ethos. It is well-known that Sanskrit is a mother of all Indo-Aryan languages and it is this language in which our Vedas, Puranas and Upanishadas have been written and in which Kalidas, Bhavbuti, Banbhatta and Dandi wrote their classics. Teachings of Shankaracharya, Ramanuj, Madhwacharya, Nimbark and Vallabhacharya would not have been woven into the fabric of Indian culture if Sanskrit would not have been available to them as a medium of expressing their thoughts. The report of the Sanskrit Commission (set up by the Government of India) which was submitted in 1957 speaks eloquently about the importance of Sanskrit. We do not propose to burden this judgment with all that was said by the Commission in this regard. It would be enough for our purpose if we take note of some passages finding place in the report which highlight the quality, substance, content and strength of Sanskrit. At page 71 of the report it has been mentioned that Sanskrit is one of the greatest languages of the world and it is the classical language par excellence not only of India but of a good part of Asia as well. At page 73 the report states that the Indian people and the Indian civilisation were born, so to say, in the lap of Sanskrit and it went" hand in hand with the historical development of the Indian people, and gave the noblest expression to their mind and culture which has come down to our day as an inheritance of priceless order for India, nay, for the entire world". The report further speaks at page 74 about the" great mental and spiritual link "of Sanskrit and of it being the elder sister of Greek and Latin, and cousin of English, French and Russian. There is no need to dilate on the importance of Sanskrit further in our national ethos in view of what was stated by no less a person than the first Prime Minister of the country, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru, in which regard, which is as below :- "If I was asked what is the greatest treasure, which India possesses and what is her finest heritage, I would answer unhesitatingly - it is the Sanskrit language and literature, and all that it contains. This is a magnificant inheritance, and so long as this endures and influences the life of our people, so long the basic genius of India will continue. " 7. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision reported in wherein Their Lordships have held that education is a mission and not a profession. Their Lordships have held as follows (at page 2244) :- "........ Trade or business normally connotes an activity carried on with a profit motive. Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of this nation. The argument to the contrary has an unholy ring to it. Imparting of education has never been treated as a trade or business in this country since times immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty. It has been treated as a charitable activity. But never as trade or business. We agree with Gajendragadkar, J., that "education in its true aspect is more a mission and a vocation rather than a profession or trade or business, however wide may be the denotation of the two latter words......" (See University of Delhi. The Parliament too has manifested its intention repeatedly (by enacting the U.G.C. Act, I.M.C. Act and A.I.C.T.E. Act) that commercialisation of education is not permissible and that no person shall be allowed to steal a march over a meritorious candidate because of his economic power. The very same intention is expressed by the legislatures of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu in the preamble to their respective enactments prohibiting charging of capitation fee. We are, therefore, of the opinion, adopting the line of reasoning in State of Bombay v. R.M.D.C., that imparting education cannot be treated as a trade or business. Education cannot be allowed to be converted into commerce nor can the petitioners seek to obtain the said result by relying upon the wider meaning of "occupation". The content of the expression "occupation" has to be ascertained keeping in mind the fact that clause (g) employs all the four expressions viz., profession, occupation, trade and business. Their fields may overlap, but each of them does certainly have a content of its own, distinct from the others. Be that as it may, one thing is clear - imparting of education is not and cannot be allowed to become commerce. Their fields may overlap, but each of them does certainly have a content of its own, distinct from the others. Be that as it may, one thing is clear - imparting of education is not and cannot be allowed to become commerce. A law, existing or future, ensuring against it would be a valid measure within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19. ..... " (Emphasis supplied) 8. It was further argued that the Central Government has even prepared a Scheme for development of Sanskrit language by which State Governments are paid 100% assistance towards salary to Sanskrit teachers. On the basis of the decision in Unnikrishnan's case it was further submitted that education being a mission, the Government cannot expect a quid pro quo. I do not think any of these submissions is applicable to the facts of this case. 9. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, petitioner has no legally enforceable right to contend that she will study Sanskrit language only from the 2nd respondent College. Her right to continue education in Sanskrit is in no way affected. The only decision taken by the Government was to transfer the Course from one College to another where also all the facilities are available. It is not a case where the petitioner alone has been denied admission. It applies to all candidates who seek admission to Sanskrit language and all the students are to be accommodated in another College. Petitioner has also no fundamental right for higher education and, therefore, she cannot insist that the Government must continue the Course in 2nd respondent-College. Unless the decision taken by the Government is held to be irrational, mala fide, unfair or contrary to any statutory direction. The scope of review in such cases is very much limited. 10. I find force in the said contention of learned Additional Government Pleader. 11. As I said earlier, the learned Additional Government Pleader has placed the entire file before me, and I find therefrom that statistics have been taken as to the course of studies in each and every college, and they have taken assessment of those Courses for which admission sought is less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. 11. As I said earlier, the learned Additional Government Pleader has placed the entire file before me, and I find therefrom that statistics have been taken as to the course of studies in each and every college, and they have taken assessment of those Courses for which admission sought is less than 50% of the sanctioned strength. It could be further seen from the file that it was not in respect of Sanskrit language alone there is a shifting of the Course to another College, but such a shifting has been made in respect of some other Course also. # Petitioner has nowhere stated in the writ petition that the decision of the Government is tainted with mala fides, or that it is against the propogation of Sanskrit language. # It is not a case where the Government has taken a decision not to impart Sanskrit language in any Institution. It could be further seen that in respect of students already admitted in the 2nd respondent College, they are allowed to complete the course in the very same Institution. It is only future admission to the Course that is transferred from 2nd respondent College to another College. On going through the file I find that the decision was taken as a policy. As was held in (State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivatra Karmachari Hitkari Samiti) (in paragraph 24). The wisdom in a policy decision of the Government, as such, is not justificable unless such policy decision is wholly capricious, arbitrary and whimsical thereby offending the Rules of law as enshrined in Art. 14 of the Constitution or such policy decision offends any statutory provisions or the provisions of the Constitution. Save as aforesaid, the Court need not embark on uncharted ocean of public policy'. A similar view was taken in the decision reported in (Sher Singh v. Union of India), in para 7 wherein Their Lordships have held that 'as a matter of fact the Courts would be slow in interfering with matters of Government policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair, mala fide or contrary to any statutory directions. There will be no justification for the Court to interfere with the policy of the Government merely on the ground of charge in the policy'. Their Lordships further went on and said thus :- "........... There will be no justification for the Court to interfere with the policy of the Government merely on the ground of charge in the policy'. Their Lordships further went on and said thus :- "........... Normally the Courts will not dictate the decision of the statutory authority in exercise of its discretion and formulation of its policies. The Court will not direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. The Court can only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. This was also the view expressed by the Court in U.P.SRTC v. Mohd. Ismail. In the present case we find that there is no judicial or quasi judicial duty or any obligation imposed on the Government to equate the library staff with the teaching staff, on the basis of which the enforcement thereof could be claimed by the appellants. In such a situation it cannot be said that the Government did not act fairly or acted mala fide so as to call for any interference by this Court invoking the power of judicial review." In this case also, there is no judicial or quasi judicial duty or any obligation imposed on the part of the Government that it will continue to impart Sanskrit language in second respondent College, nor has the petitioner a legal right to have the same enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus. So long as the decision of the Government is not tainted with mala fide or contrary to any statutory direction, there is no scope for giving any direction to the Government to continue the course in 2nd respondent College. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prospectus has been issued wherein it is said that Sanskrit language is one of the Course available for admission in B.A. Literature. It was further argued on the basis of legitimate expectation that the petitioner can continue the course in the same College where the Course was being continued for nearly a century. The said submission of learned counsel for petitioner is also without any basis. The principle of legitimate expectation has no role to play when the appropriate authority is empowered to take a decision while executing the policy under law. The said submission of learned counsel for petitioner is also without any basis. The principle of legitimate expectation has no role to play when the appropriate authority is empowered to take a decision while executing the policy under law. A prior decision would not bind the Government for all times to come. If the Government feels that a change in the policy is necessary in public interest, it is entitled to revise the policy or lay down a new policy-vide P.T.R. Exports (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. 13. That apart, in this case, petitioner cannot plead legitimate expectation, when she was denied application form when she wanted to join B.A. (Sanskrit). The application form was not issued and she was informed that the College is not going to admit students for the said Course. There was no representation by any of the respondent that she will be admitted to Sanskrit Course. 14. It was then submitted that the prospectus for 1998-99 is the same for all the Courses, and this prospectus has been issued to all the students. Even now B.A. Litt. is one of the Courses imparted in 2nd respondent College. We are only concerned with the question whether there was any representation to petitioner by the respondents. It is only pursuant to an interim order by this Court, she received an application form. The argument on the basis of legitimate expectation has also no place in this case. 15. The further argument of the petitioner's counsel that she hails from a conservative family, and she wanted to study in Women's college alone where her elder sister is also a student, is irrelevant when the policy of the Government is not tainted with any mala fides or, unfairness. 16. It was submitted that girl students are being segregated in Primary Section and High School Section, etc. 17. When girl students seek admission to graduate and post-graduate courses, they are little more matured and have reached an understanding capacity. The atmosphere is also a little more intellectual and, therefore, the necessity of segregating women is not that much required as in the lower standards. That apart, it cannot be doubted that the women have progressed in society to a very great extent, and judicial notice can also be taken that women are taking active part in administration, executive and judiciary, which was not originally there in our Society. That apart, it cannot be doubted that the women have progressed in society to a very great extent, and judicial notice can also be taken that women are taking active part in administration, executive and judiciary, which was not originally there in our Society. # Under these circumstances, the principle of segregation may be necessary in the lower classes. # But it can not be said that it is absolutely necessary in Degree Course. After all, Government knows the necessities and also the fields in which women will have to be segregated, and, merely because petitioner hails from a conservative family, that by itself cannot be a reason to hold that the policy of the Government in shifting the Course to Presidency College is invalid. The old conservative approach has changed in the last 50 years. Again, that is also not a legally enforceable right to compel the Government to change their policy. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and consequently it is dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.