ORDER B.V. Nagarathna, J In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged Notification No.ED 36 SHH 2007(1), Bangalore dated 7.6.2007 vide Annexure-F by which, 100 Pre-University Colleges have been sanctioned by the State Government for the academic year 2007-08 and the petitioner is aggrieved by the upgradation of Government High School to a Pre-University College at Honnavalli Village, TipturTaluk at Sl.No.12 of the said notification. 2. The petitioner is said to be running a Pre-University College for the last 22 years and by order dated 31.3.2001 (Annexure-A), the college was admitted to grant-in-aid. According to the petitioner, the students who join the said college are mainly from two High Schools viz., Government High School, Honnavalli and Kannada Bharathi High School, Honnavalli and that it has the requisite infrastructure catering to the educational requirement of the students. The case of the petitioner is that on account of political interference, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner replied to the same but, an order was made on 17.4.2007 directing the petitioner not to admit students for I year PUC for the academic year 2007-08. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7457/2007, which was rejected on account of there being an alternative remedy to seek redressal of the grievance of the petitioner against which, Writ Appeal No.1074/2007 has been filed and the Division Bench of this Court has permitted the petitioner -college to admit students, with liberty to approach the appropriate authority. According to the petitioner, when things stood thus, by impugned Notification No.ED 36 SHH 2007(1), Bangalore dated 7.6.2007, the State Government established another pre-university college at Honnavalli which is produced as Annexure- ‘F’ in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 5. 5. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner had made representations produced at Annexures-J and J1, the State Government had failed to consider the same and hence, had urged that the writ petition ought to be allowed by quashing Annexure-F insofar as Sl.No.12 is concerned. 4. 5. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner had made representations produced at Annexures-J and J1, the State Government had failed to consider the same and hence, had urged that the writ petition ought to be allowed by quashing Annexure-F insofar as Sl.No.12 is concerned. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the establishment of a Government Pre-University College at Honnavalli is motivated and is an indirect attempt to close the petitioner’s college and that instead of encouraging Government aided institutions such as the petitioner-college, the respondents-authorities, with a vengeance, have commenced another Government Pre-University College in the very same place which would adversely affect the strength of the college run by the petitioner and thereby cause injury to it. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Government orders dated 11.8.2006 and 18.1.2007 produced as Annexures-G and H respectively to contend that whenever the Government intends to establish a new High School or college, it should not disturb or cause injury to an aided institution existing in the said locality and that a Government institution should be at least 3 kms away from an aided institution where the population is more than 5000. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that in a similar case, the State Government had shifted a Pre-University College in Bukkapatna to Dodda Agrahara in Sira taluk since another private institution called Vidyaranya Vidya Samsthe, Turivekere taluk, was situated and therefore, in the instant case, the Government Pre-University College established in Honnavalli ought to be shifted to another place. 6. As a counter to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate has relied upon paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of his statement of objections to contend that the State Government had constituted Dr.Nanjundappa Committee to examine the educational backwardness of various taluks in the State and the committee had submitted a report that there are 114 taluks in the State which were educationally backward and a decision was taken by the State Government to start 100 Pre-University Colleges in the State for the academic year 2007-08 in the educationally backward taluks where there was a need to start a pre-university college. The State Government had called for a report from the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education and in the instant case, the Deputy Director of Pre-University College, Tumkur had forwarded his recommendation to the Commissioner of Pre-University Education who, after examining the same, had recommended for starting of Pre-University Colleges in Tumkur District including one in Honnavalli village by upgrading the existing Government High School as a Composite Junior College and that the petitioner cannot have a grievance for the starting of a new Pre-University College by upgrading the existing High School and that under Article 21 A of the Constitution of India, it is an obligation on the part of the State to provide free education to the children and that nearly 80 students have already joined the Government Pre-University college by July 2007 and therefore, the petitioner could not have challenged the starting of Government Pre-University College. 7. It was further contended by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner- institution though, started in the year 1984 does not have the requisite infrastructure and there is no other Pre-University College within a radius of 18 Kms. It is further submitted that the State Government had initially permitted the petitioner to start its Pre-University College at Bidiragudi village, Honnavalli taluk but, without obtaining permission from the competent authority during the academic year 1987-88, the petitioner had shifted the college from Bidiragudi village to Honnavalli village and thereafter, on 30.1.1991, the State Government granted permission for the shifting and though the college was established more than 22 years ago, on account of inadequate infrastructure, the officers of the Controller Accountant General had visited the petitioner-institution in the year 2002 and had objected for release of grants and in view of the audit objections, salary grant was withheld by the State Government and subsequently recommended for grants on the direction issued by the Committee of Legislative Council and after inspection in the year 2006, show-cause notice was issued as per Annexure-E not to admit any student for the academic year 2007-08 and it is only on the intervention of this Court by way of an interim order in Writ Appeal No.1074/2007 that the students have been admitted for II year Pre-University Course and that there are no students for the I year Pre-University Course. The learned Government Advocate has also relied upon copies of the enquiry reports dated 20.1.2006 and 6.6.2007 (Annexures-R1 and R2 respectively) with regard to the status of the petitioner -college and the resolution passed by the Honnavalli Grama Panchayat (Annexure R.3) requesting for starting of a Government Pre-University College on the ground that the petitioner college did not have the necessary infrastructure. It is denied that there is any kind of political interference in the matter and has, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merits and ought to be dismissed. 8. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to submit that the population of Honnavalli village is about 1494 only, as per the voters list for the year 2006 (Annexure-K) and that the shifting of the college from Bidiragudi to Honnavalli in the year 1987 was by virtue of the order passed by this Court and that it has the necessary infrastructure and land for imparting education and that the enquiry reports dated 20.1.2006 and 6.6.2007 at Annexures-R1 and R2 are prepared at the instance of political motivation. 9. At the outset, I do not wish to go into the question of adequacy or inadequacy of the infrastructure of the petitioner-college at Honnavalli as, that cannot be the basis for considering as to whether the upgradation of an existing Government High School into a Pre-University College by virtue of Annexure-F is valid in law or not. On the other hand, if really the infrastructure at the petitioner-institution is inadequate, then the need for starting another institution is all the more justified. The impugned Government Notification dated 7.6.2007 vide Annexure-F states, inter alia, that in the interest of students and keeping in mind the educational backwardness of certain areas in the State and also the fact that students have been constrained to travel to far off areas for the purpose of pre-university education, 100 Pre-University Colleges have been sanctioned for the academic year 2007 -08 on acceptance of the report submitted by Dr.Nanjundappa Committee and accordingly, where Government High Schools were functioning, sanction has been granted for upgradation of such institutions to composite colleges and in areas where no Government High Schools were functioning, independent colleges could be commenced subject to certain term and conditions mentioned therein. 10. 10. The petitioner has relied upon Annexures-G and H in order to contend that the sanction of a college at Honnavalli village at Sl.No.12 in Annexure-F is not in accordance with law and therefore, ought to be quashed. 11. . Annexures-G and H relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my view, are of no support to the petitioner. On Annexure-G is a letter dated 11.8.2006 written by Director, Secondary Education to the Deputy Director, Department of Public Instructions stating that for the academic year 2006-07, 383 Government High Schools have been sanctioned and information was sought with regard to the villages having more than 5000 people and on location of schools within 3 kms. from the private aided institutions so that before any commencement or transfer of the schools, certain guidelines would be followed. This letter is in the context of Secondary Schools and not Pre-University Colleges. Annexure-H is a Government order dated 18.1.2007 stating that for the year 2006-07, following Dr.Nanjundappa’s report, in Bukkapatna village, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District, one pre- University College was sanctioned and that since the year 1991, there was already an SC/ST Pre-University College functioning and therefore, the Pre-University College started at Bukkapatna could be transferred to Doddaagrahara village as there was no High School at Huyildore village. A reading of this Government order makes it apparent that the presence of a High School in the village or locality where a Pre-University College would be commenced is necessary so that the students from the High School could join the Pre-University College started in the same locality and the Pre- University College also could be assured of sufficient strength and this would also be convenient to the students in the very same locality. In the instant case also, the existing High School at Honnavalli has been upgraded into a Pre-University College so that the students from the High School could consider joining the said college. Hence, the Government letter dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure-G) and the Government order dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure-H) are not applicable, to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. In the instant case also, the existing High School at Honnavalli has been upgraded into a Pre-University College so that the students from the High School could consider joining the said college. Hence, the Government letter dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure-G) and the Government order dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure-H) are not applicable, to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. It is also relevant to note that Article 21A of the Constitution states that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may, by law, determine and the said right which is a fundamental right is also in line with Article 45 of the Directive Principles of State Policy which states that the State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until the age of six years and Article 46 which states that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. As has already been observed, the State Government, on acceptance of the report of Dr. Nanjundappa committee, has sanctioned 100 Pre-university Colleges in the State for the academic year 2007-08 to the educationally backward taluks where there is a need to start Pre- University College and after receiving report from the Deputy Director of Pre-University Education regarding starting of new Pre-university Colleges in the districts, the State Government took a decision to upgrade the existing Government High School at Honnavalli village into a Pre-university College. It is also stated that within a radius of 18 kms, there is no Government Pre-University College and particularly, when the petitioner-institution has not been able to cater to the needs of the locality on account of inadequate infrastructure, the students would have to travel 18 Kms. from Honnavalli village to attend another institution. Under the circumstances, the upgradation of the Government High School into a Pre-University College cannot be held to be arbitrary and Annexure- F has to be upheld. 13. It is also observed that when the primary duty is cast on the State Government to provide educational facilities for the children and the youth, any improvement or extension of such facilities cannot be found fault with. 13. It is also observed that when the primary duty is cast on the State Government to provide educational facilities for the children and the youth, any improvement or extension of such facilities cannot be found fault with. The State Government, on account of several constraints, has been depending upon private initiative for educational institutions to be commenced and continued so as to meet the ever increasing demand. If the State Government had the resources to cater to the needs of the citizens, it would not have been so necessary for the private institutions to have ventured into the field of education. Hence, in this context, the petitioner being a private educational institution cannot, in my view, challenge the commencement of an educational institution in the locality or the upgradation of the existing High School into a Pre-University College. Moreover, there cannot be rival claims between the State Government institutions and the private educational institutions as their object and purpose is one and the same viz., to cater to the educational demands of the citizens. Yet, they fall in different categories and any initiative/steps taken by the State Government for meeting the demands of education cannot have any adverse repurcussion on a private educational institution and the petitioner cannot contend that there has been an arbitrary action or discrimination in the matter of upgradation of the existing High School into a Pre-University College. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.