( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by way of public interest by anjuman-e-tarreqi-e-funkaran-e-urdu, Bangalore. The petitioner has sought for the following prayers. (A) quash by writ of certiorari the notification bearing No. Dpar:07:srr: 94, Bangalore, dated 21-7-1997 insofar as prescribing passing of kannada paper for the main examination vide Annexure-b. (B) declare schedule ii of the Karnataka recruitment of gazetted probationers (appointment by competitive examinations) rules, 1997 insofar as prescribing the written examination paper I kannada under the head main examination is ultra vires to the rights guaranteed to the minorities under articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of india. (C) direct by writ of mandamus to the respondent-authorities not to impose passing of kannada as compulsory subject for selection to the post of gazetted probationers. (D) pass any appropriate order as deemed fit by this Hon'ble court. (E) award cost. ( 2 ) IN the body of the writ petition, the petitioner states that passing of paper I kannada main examination part b in terms of schedule ii to the Karnataka recruitment of gazetted probationers (appointment by competitive examinations) rules, 1997 is in violation of articles 14, 19, 29, 30 and 350-a of the Constitution of india. It is further contended that the respondents, by insisting on passing of kannada language in terms of the rules is trying to impose the compulsory study of kannada to students whose mother-tongue is not kannada. This is the only ground mentioned in the writ petition. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He essentially contended that the insistence of kannada language affects the rights of minorities. ( 4 ) THE state government exercising its power under the Karnataka state civil services Act, 1978 made the rules known as the Karnataka recruitment of gazetted probationers (appointment by competitive examinations) rules, 1997. Rule 3 of the rules provide for an application and Rule 4 provide for holding of competitive examinations. Schedule ii has been issued in terms of Rule 4 of the rules. Schedule ii provide for scheme of examination. Schedule ii provide for syllabi for the examination part a - preliminary examination compulsory subjects and part b main examination. In that, paper I deal with kannada. It is this passing of kannada examination that is questioned before us as violas ve of articles 14, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of india. Schedule ii provide for scheme of examination. Schedule ii provide for syllabi for the examination part a - preliminary examination compulsory subjects and part b main examination. In that, paper I deal with kannada. It is this passing of kannada examination that is questioned before us as violas ve of articles 14, 29 and 30 of the Constitution of india. ( 5 ) IN the state of kaenataka, reading and writing of kannada is essentially necessary for dealing with official matters. All that Article 29 (2) lays down is that no citizen shall be denied admission to 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. Passing of requisite test in language is compulsory for employment and that cannot be equated to a denial of a right on the ground of ianguage. It is also seen that the aim of the paper is to test the candidate's ability to read and understand the serious discussing prose and to express his ideas clearly and correctly in kannada. We are unable to understand as to how passing of an examination in kannada is in violation of Article 14 or for that matter articles 29 and 30. Article 29 provides for a right to confer the minority to have a distinct language, script or culture of its own. Article 30 provide for a right to establish and administer educational institution of their choice by all minorities whether based on religion or not. The effect of the Rule is only to preseirbe a language test as a necessary condition for entry into government service. The Rule does not purport to discriminate one another and the test is applicable to all aspirants applying for the post in the state of karrnataka. Passing of an examination in kannada in terms of the Rule cannot be said to be in any way obstructive of the right granted under articles 14 or 29 and 30. There is reasonableness in asking the probationer to pass an examination so that the administrative work can be handled with ease through the local language namely kannada in the state of kamataka. The said aim also cannot be said to be destroying any of the rights guaranteed under articles 29 and 30. There is reasonableness in asking the probationer to pass an examination so that the administrative work can be handled with ease through the local language namely kannada in the state of kamataka. The said aim also cannot be said to be destroying any of the rights guaranteed under articles 29 and 30. The petitioner is unable to show how this writing of an examination is destructive of the right either under Article 14 or articles 29 and 30. ( 6 ) IN this connection we may usefully refer to the rulings of courts of law with regard to violation of articles 29 and 30. In the state of then Madras, the state government insisted on the account being written in the local language by amending Section 10 of the then Madras pawnbro kers act of 1943. In M. Kevalchand Sowcar v State of Madras and others, Sub-section (2) of Section 10 was questioned as being violative of articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of india. Dealing with these contentions, the Madras High Court ruled as under at page 520. "the act was designed among other things to control the nefarious activities, if any, of some pawnbrokers, who facilitated the disposal of stolen property. The statement of objects and reasons pointed out that the maintenance of the books of account by a pawnbroker, in a language not in current use in the locality in which he carried on his business, made detection of offences of disposal of stolen properties more difficult. Even if the restriction imposed by section 10 (2) was designed to facilitate maintenance of law and Order, that would be sufficient to bring it within the scope of Article 19 (6) of the constitution. . . . . The debtor has a right to know how he stands with his creditor. To give an extract of an account, if it is maintained, say in gujarathi script, would be sufficient compliance with Section 10 (l) (d), but it would be in no way help a debtor unfamiliar with that language. The pawnbrokers even of the marwari group constitute, no doubt, a Section of the community. The debtors constitute another Section of the community, a much larger section. The pawnbrokers even of the marwari group constitute, no doubt, a Section of the community. The debtors constitute another Section of the community, a much larger section. If in its wisdom, the legislature chose to provide for the protection of the larger community of debtors, and in that endeavour chose to prescribe what prima facie appears to be a restriction on the right of the pawnbroker to maintain his accounts in his own language, it is not for the courts to say that it constitutes an unreasonable restriction outside the purview of Article 19 (6) of the constitution". ( 7 ) IN identical circumstances, sub-section (2) of Section 10 of Mysore pawnbrokers Act, 1961 and Rule 15 of the Mysore pawnbrokers rules, 1966 provided for maintaining the records of books of accounts and documents either in english or in kannada. The same was the subjectmatter of a challenge before this court in W. P. nos. 5401 and 5600 to 5615 of 1969, dd: 6-2-1970 (kar. ). While challenging specific contentions were raised with regard to the said Provisions being in violation of the minority rights, in particular articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India by those businessmen hailing from the state of rajasthan. This court in the detailed judgment, noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court in kevalchand's case referred to above and agreed with the reasonings of the Madras High Court. This court further ruled as under. "we shall now deal with the complaint of infringement of the fundamental right guaranteed by clause (1) of Article 29 of the constitution. That clause reads: 29 (1) any Section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. Mr. V. l. narasimha murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v Pratap Singh Daulta, that unlike Article 19 (1), Article 29 (1) is not subject to any reasonable restrictions and that the right conferred upon a Section of the citizens in the territory of India or any part thereof, to conserve their language, script or culture, is made absolute by the constitution. Mr. Mr. Narasimha murthy argued that under Article 29 (1) the petitioners have a right to maintain their accounts, books, records and documents relating to their business as pawnbrokers, in their language, namely, hindi, and that the requirement under Section 10 (2) and Rule 15 that pawnbrokers should maintain their books, accounts, records and documents in english or kannada, would abridge such right. The learned government Advocate contended that the right of the petitioners to conserve their own language, script or culture is in no way affected by the requirement that they should maintain books, accounts, records and documents in their business as pawnbrokers in english or kannada language. Elaborating his argument, the learned government Advocate submitted that the petitioners are free to learn hindi and any script, to read hindi, to speak hindi, to foster and promote hindi by establishing any educational institutions or research institutions and by publishing books, journals and periodicals, that the Provisions of Section 10 (2) and Rule 15 do not place any restrictions on such activities and that the requirement that books, accounts, records and documents relating to their business as pawnbrokers should be maintained in english or kannada, cannot be regarded as coming in the way of their conserving hindi or any particular script. The learned government Advocate maintained that there is no bar to the petitioners keeping separate accounts in their language for their own information, without prejudice to the requirement that for the purposes of the Act, they should maintain accounts in english or kannada. The word, 'conserve' according to the shorter oxford dictionary, means to keep in safety or from harm, decay or loss; to preserve in its existing state from destruction or change; to keep alive. We think the contention of the learned government Advocate is well-founded. The requirement that a citizen, in his dealings with other citizens, should use a language or script known to such others or a majority of them, cannot reasonably be construed as coming in the way of his conserving his language or script. The right to conserve one's language or a script, cannot be understood as a right to use a language or script not understood by others, in dealing with those others. The constitution itself provides for an official language for the purpose of the union and for the purposes of each of the states. The right to conserve one's language or a script, cannot be understood as a right to use a language or script not understood by others, in dealing with those others. The constitution itself provides for an official language for the purpose of the union and for the purposes of each of the states. The requirement that officials acts should be transacted in the official language, cannot be understood as affecting the right of any Section of the citizens to conserve their language, because in a large sphere outside such official transactions, citizens are free to speak, read and write in any language they choose". ( 8 ) IN the light of these observations of this court and following these two decisions, we hold that the insistence of kannada language examination does not in any way affect any of the rights of the petitioner herein. ( 9 ) RECENTLY a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking for a direction by hindi hitrakshak samithi to hold an examination only in hindi or any other regional language in the case of Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti and others v Union of India and others. Article 29 was pressed into service in that case also. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case has noticed the scope of Article 29 in the following words. "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 29 (2) of the Constitution no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the 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 29 (2 ). He also draws our attention to Article 29 (1) 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. He also draws our attention to Article 29 (1) 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 admission on the ground of language. Every educational institution has right to determine or set out its method of education and conditions of examination and studies provided these do not directly or indirectly have any causal connection with violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. It may be that hindi or other regional languages 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 police by the state or educational authorities in charge of any particular situation". ( 10 ) IN the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the absence of any positive material evidencing infringement of any of the fundamental rights including articles 14, 29 and 30, we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. ( 11 ) THE state government in its wisdom has chosen to provide for passing of a paper for better efficiency which cannot be said to be violative of any minority rights as contended by the petitioner. None of the rights have, as a matter of fact, been violated by the respondents. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .