ORDER The petitioner has sought for a declaration that Paragraph 4-3(3) of the Admission to Para-medical Courses (Para-Medical Certificate Courses/Diploma in Medical Laboratory) 2008-09, published by the second respondent, insofar as, it imposes a condition that the candidate should have been taken Tamil as First Language for admission to the said course, as illegal or ultra vires of the Constitution of India and for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to admit her to the Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology Course (Two years course) in the third respondent's Kanyakumari Government Medical College, Asaripallam, Kanyakumari District to be commenced in 2008-09. 2. As issues involved in both the Writ Petitions are common, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 3. The petitioner is a native of Tamil Nadu. She has passed +2 examination conducted by the State Board in Tamil Nadu, March 2008. She has secured 73.6% in the core subjects, viz., Maths, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. On 28.7.2008, she applied for admission to Diploma in Medical Laboratory course (two years course conducted by the State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Medical Education, Tamil Nadu). The cut off marks for selection to the above said course for 2008-09 for candidates belonging to OC, to which, the petitioner belongs, is 122. Whereas, the petitioner has secured 139 marks and hence, she is eligible for admission. But she was not called for counseling. The reason for not calling for counseling is that the petitioner had not taken Tamil as First Language in her School Education, as per Paragraph 4.3 of the prospectus for Admission to Para Medical Courses (Para Medical Certificate Course/Diploma in Medical Laboratory Course) 2008-09 published by the second respondent. Inspite of her request, dated 17.9.2008, the respondents have refused to call the petitioner for counselling. Left with no other option, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition for the relief as stated supra. 4. Inspite of her request, dated 17.9.2008, the respondents have refused to call the petitioner for counselling. Left with no other option, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition for the relief as stated supra. 4. The Director of Medical Education, Chennai, second respondent herein in his counter affidavit, has submitted that one of the eligibility criteria, as prescribed in Clause 4(3) of the Para-Medical course, 2008-09 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, is as follows: "4(3) Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology Course - (Two years course) OC, BC, BC Christians, BC Muslims and MBC candidates who have passed +2 Higher Secondary Certificate (Academic/Vocational) Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary State Board or Equivalent Board with the following group of subjects with aggregate marks of 45% in the Science subjects are eligible to apply SC/ST candidates are eligible to apply with mere pass in the H.S.C Examination. a. Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology (or) b. Physics, Chemistry, Biology with any other subject (or) c. Vocational Medical Laboratory Technician Course. 3. Candidates should have taken Tamil as First Language and English as Second Language." 5. According to the second respondent, only candidates who have taken Tamil as First Language alone are eligible to apply for DMLT course, whereas, the petitioner has taken Malayalam as first language in Higher Secondary Course, conducted by the Board of Higher Secondary Education, Chennai-6, during March 2008. Based on the prospectus, the application of the petitioner has been summarily rejected and her parent was also informed in person. He has further submitted that the instructions contained in the prospectus have been strictly followed and therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to claim admission for the said course. 6. The Dean, Kanyakumari Medical College, Kanyakumari, third respondent herein in his counter affidavit has adopted the stand of the second respondent. The third respondent has further submitted that since Tamil language is necessary for persons to work in rural areas in the State of Tamil Nadu, the condition imposed in the prospectus cannot be termed as unconstitutional. She further submitted that a person qualified in certificate course would be appointed to serve under the control of Health Department, in Medical Colleges/Hospitals in rural areas and therefore, knowledge of local language is necessary and essential to communicate with the patients, at the time of treatment. She further submitted that a person qualified in certificate course would be appointed to serve under the control of Health Department, in Medical Colleges/Hospitals in rural areas and therefore, knowledge of local language is necessary and essential to communicate with the patients, at the time of treatment. He also submitted that the same qualification is prescribed for applying to various courses like Diploma Course in Nursing (DMLT) and etc., to be conducted in this State. For the above said reasons, she prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Referring to Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India, Mr. K.N. Thambi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Paragraph 4(3) of the Admission to Para-medical Courses (Para-Medical Certificate Coures/Diploma in Medical Laboratory) 2008-09, is violative of the Constitutional provision, which states that 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 further submitted that denying admission on the basis of the condition that the candidate should have taken Tamil as first language and English as second language in the Higher Secondary Course is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 8. Inviting the attention of this Court to Clause (sic) 18(c) of the prospectus to Para- medical Courses (Para-Medical Certificate Courses/ Diploma in Medical Laboratory) 2008-09, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the medium of instruction is English, there is no nexus in prescribing the condition that the candidate should have taken Tamil as first language in the Higher Secondary course. Therefore, prescription of the above said condition is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. Referring to Clause 16 of the Prospectus, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the candidates, who have successfully completed the training and internship training, would be awarded only a certificate and when employment in Government service is not guaranteed by the Government, there is no reason as to why the legitimate right of a candidate to pursue her higher education should be curtailed on the ground of language, which is ultra vires of the Constitution. He further submitted that if all the seats are to be filled up only by candidates, who have taken Tamil as first language in Higher Secondary Course, then it would amount to 100% reservation, which is not permissible in law. 10. Referring to Rule 12-A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, he further submitted that a person, being otherwise qualified for appointment to the post to which recruitment is to be made, may apply for recruitment to the post, despite the fact that, at the time of such application, he does not possess an adequate knowledge of Tamil, and every such candidate, if selected or appointed after 9.2.1996, can pass the Second Class Language Test in Tamil conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, or pass the language test in Tamil referred to in Rule 12-B(i) conducted by the appointing authority or pass the oral 12-B(ii) conducted by the appointing authority, as the case may be, within a period of two years from the date of his appointment. When the selected or appointed candidate can pass the test, the condition imposed in the prospectus is unnecessary and contrary to service rules. 11. Referring to the reasons stated in the counter affidavit that persons, who are likely to be appointed in the post are to serve under the control of Health Department in Medical Colleges/Hospitals in rural areas and that they should possess regional language, so as to converse with the patients at the time of taking treatment, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said condition is contrary to Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. He further submitted that a thing which the State cannot do, even by legislative measure and which would be against Article 29(2) of the Constitution, cannot be done by issuing an executive order, followed by a prospectus, setting out the norms for admission. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner being native of Tamil Nadu and having studied and passed the +2 examination in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, knows to read and write Tamil and therefore, she is entitled to apply for admission to the above said course. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner being native of Tamil Nadu and having studied and passed the +2 examination in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu, knows to read and write Tamil and therefore, she is entitled to apply for admission to the above said course. If at any point of time, the petitioner is given appointment to serve under the control of Health Department, in Medical Colleges/Hospitals in rural areas, she can always communicate with the patients inTamil and also pass the test prescribed under the service Rules. Apprehending that the petitioner may not be in a position to converse with the patients at the time of treatment and on that score, preventing her from pursuing higher studies, is illegal and unsustainable. 13. Per contra, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment in (2008) 7 MLJ 417, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner, having participated in the process of selection, cannot be permitted to challenge the condition in the prospectus. Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, he submitted that prescription of Tamil as First language and English as second language in the Higher Secondary courses, as per Clause 4(3) of the prospectus for admission to Para-medical Courses (Para-Medical Certificate Coures/Diploma in Medical Laboratory) 2008-09, was necessitated, taking into consideration that a person, after qualifying the certificate course, if appointed under the control of Health Department to serve in Medical Colleges/Hospitals in rural areas has to converse with the patients in the regional language at the time of taking treatment and therefore, Tamil as first language in the qualifying examination is one of the required qualifications for applying to the said course. As the petitioner has taken Malayalam as first language, she is not eligible to apply to the said course. According to the State counsel, prospectus binds the petitioner and therefore, summary rejection of her application cannot be found fault with. For the above said reasons, he submitted that there is no violation of the constitutional provisions and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. Record of proceedings shows that by order in M.P. No. 1 of 2008, this Court has directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant in Diploma in Medical Laboratory Course (two years course in 2008-09). Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. Record of proceedings shows that by order in M.P. No. 1 of 2008, this Court has directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant in Diploma in Medical Laboratory Course (two years course in 2008-09). Clause 4 of the prospectus for admission to Para-Medical Course/DMLT course for the academic year, 2008-09 prescribes the Educational Qualification/minimum eligibility. Clause 4.3 reads as follows: "4(3) Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology Course - (Two years course) OC, BC, BC Christians, BC Muslims and MBC candidates who have passed +2 Higher Secondary Certificate (Academic/ Vocational) Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary State Board or Equivalent Board with the following group of subjects with aggregate marks of 45% in the Science subjects are eligible to apply SC/ST candidates are eligible to apply with mere pass in the H.S.C Examination. a. Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology (or) b. Physics, Chemistry, Biology with any other subject (or) c. Vocational Medical Laboratory Technician Course. 3. Candidates should have taken Tamil as First Language and English as Second Language." The impugned condition at sub-clause 3(3) of Class 4 is as follows: "Candidate should be taken Tamil as first language and English as second language." 15. Part-III of the Constitution of India deals with Fundamental Rights of a citizen. Articles 29 and 30 fall within Part-III of the Constitution of India. As per Article 29(2), 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. 16. 12-A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service provides that a person, being otherwise qualified for appointment to the post to which recruitment is to be made, may apply for recruitment to the post, despite the fact that, at the time of such application, he does not possess an adequate knowledge of Tamil and Rule 12-A(b) enables such selected candidate to pass the Second Class Language Test in Tamil conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, or pass the language test in Tamil referred to in Rule 12-B(i) conducted by the appointing authority or pass the oral 12-B(ii) conducted by the appointing authority, as the case may be, within a period of two years from the date of his appointment. 17. 17. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and dignity of an individual cannot be attained unless it is accompanied by right to education. Therefore, the State is under obligation to make provisions to all citizens to persue education, irrespective of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. In the case on hand, the reason for imposing the impugned condition is that if a qualified person has to be recruited to Government service, he may have to work in Government Hospitals or dispensaries in local areas and that he may have to explain to the patients in regional language and therefore, there would be some difficulty in communicating with them. Whereas, those who have taken Tamil as first language in Higher Secondary Course will be able to communicate with them and thus, for the above reason, the former is not qualified for admission to DMLT course. 18. It is well settled that in order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, viz., (i) that the classification must be founded on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes a class of persons or things that are grouped together from others, who are left out of the groups, and (ii) that the difference must have a rational relationship to the object sought to be achieved. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of enactment or the executive order. 19. In AIR 1951 SC 226 , the Supreme Court dealt with the validity of a communal Government Order, fixing proportional seats for different communities in the State colleges. At Paragraph 7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that, "It will be noticed that while Clause (sic) (1) protects the language, script or culture of a Section of the citizens, Clause (sic) (2) guarantees the fundamental right of an individual citizen. The right to get admission into any educational institution of the kind mentioned in Clause (2) (sic) is a right which an individual citizen has as a citizen and not as a member of any community or class of citizens. This right is not to be denied to the citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. This right is not to be denied to the citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. If a citizen who seeks admission into any such educational institution has not the requisite academic qualifications and is denied admission on that ground, he certainly cannot be heard to complain of an infraction of his fundamental right under this article. But, on the other hand, if he has the academic qualifications but is refused admission only on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or any of them, then there is a clear breach of his fundamental right." 20. At Paragraph 8 of the above reported judgment, the Supreme Court held thus, "The chapter of Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any Legislative or Executive Act or order, except to the extent provided in the appropriate article in Part III. The directive principles of State policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. In our opinion, that is the correct way in which the provisions found in Part III and IV have to be understood. However, so long as there is no infringement of any Fundamental Right, to the extent conferred by the provisions in Part III, there can be no objection to the State acting in accordance with the directive principles set out in Part IV, but subject again to the Legislative and Executive powers and limitations conferred on the State under different provisions of the Constitution." 21. In AIR 1954 SC 561 , the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court considered the validity of a Government circular restricting admission to Anglo Indian Schools. In AIR 1954 SC 561 , the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court considered the validity of a Government circular restricting admission to Anglo Indian Schools. As there was a restriction of admission to an educational institution on the basis of language, it would be appropriate to extract the short facts leading to the above reported case, which are as follows: "The Government of Bombay issued a circular in Clause (sic) 5 that "no primary or secondary school shall from the date of these orders admit to a class where English is used as a medium of instruction any pupil other than pupil belonging to a Section of citizens the language of which is English namely, Anglo-Indians and citizens of non-Asiatic descent." Clause (sic) 7 of the Circular, all schools using English as a Medium of instruction were "advised to open progressively divisions of standards using Hindi or an Indian language as the medium of instruction, starting from Stardard I in 1954". One of the Anglo Indian Schools affected by the circular having applied for the issue of a Writ of mandamus against the State Government preventing it from enforcing the said circular order against it on the ground that it contravened the constitutional provisions of Articles 29(2) and 337. Educational Society of Bombay established a High School by name Barnes High School. The Secretary of Society and one of the Directors of the Society were the citizens of India and members of Anglo Indian Community. Their mother tongue of the members of the Anglo Indian Community is English. One Major Mr.Pinto, citizen of India, who belonged to Indian Christian Community and claimed that his two sons were then studying in the Barnes High School and educated through the medium of English. He accompanied by his daughter Brenda and approached the Headmaster of Barnes High School seeking admission for her to the said School. He was informed by the Headmaster about the order issued by the State of Bombay on the 6.1.1954, and therefore, informed that in view of the said order, the Headmaster was compelled to refuse admission to her since she did not belong to Anglo-Indian Community nor was she of non-Asiatic descent, although she had all the necessary qualifications for admission to the said School. Dr. Dr. Mahadeo Eknath Gujar, citizen of India and member of the Guzrati Hindu Community, desired that his son should become a medical practitioner and go abroad for higher medical studies. His mother tongue is Gujarathi. He wanted his son to be admitted in Barnes High School. His request for admission to the said school was refused by the Headmaster on the ground that the boy did not belong to Anglo-Indian Community and was not of non-Asiatic descent, although he had all the necessary qualifications for admission to the school. Hon'ble Archdeacon A. S. H. Johnson and Mrs. Glynne Howell in February, 1954, presented a petition before the High Court of Bombay seeking for a mandamus restraining the State of Bombay, its Officers, servants and agents from enforcing the said order and from taking any steps or proceedings in enforcement of the same and compelling the respondent therein to withdraw or cancel the said purported order and to allow the petitioner therein to admit to any standard in the said school any children of non-Anglo-Indian citizens or citizens of Asiatic descent and to educate them through the medium of English language. Likewise Major Pinto and his daughter Brenda and Dr. Gujar and his son Gopal made similar applications for similar reliefs. The Bombay High Court held that the circular, dated 6.1.1954 was bad and allowed the Writ Petitions. 22. On the facts of the case, the Supreme Court framed two questions for consideration, viz., (1) as to the right of students who are not Anglo-Indians or who are of Asiatic descent to be admitted to Barnes High School which is a recognized Anglo-Indian School which imparts education through the medium of English, and (2) as to the right of the said Barnes High School to admit non-Anglo-Indian students and students of Asiatic descent. While dealing with the first question, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, after considering the arguments of the Learned Attorney General, Government of India, at Paragraphs 15 and 16, observed as follows: "It is equally difficult, it is said, to appreciate why the salutory principle of imparting education through the medium of the pupil's mother tongue should require that a pupil whose mother tongue in not English but is, say, Gujarathi, should be debarred from getting admission only into an Anglo-Indian School where the medium of instruction is English but not from being admitted into a School where the medium of instruction is a regional language, say Konkani, which is not the mother tongue of the pupil." "Whatever the object, the immediate ground and direct cause for the denial is that the mother tongue of the pupil is not English. Adapting the language of Lord Thankerton, it may be said that the laudable object of the impugned order does not obviate the prohibition of Article 29(2) because the effect of the order involves an infringement of this fundamental right, and that effect is brought about by denying admission only on the ground of language. The same principle is implicit in the decision of this Court in (1951) SCR 525 at p. 530). There also the object of the impugned communal G.O. was to advance the interest of educationally backward classes of citizens but, that object notwithstanding, this Court struck down the order as un-constitutional because the modus operandi to achieve that object was directly based only on one of the forbidden grounds specified in the article. In our opinion the impugned order offends against the fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens by Article 29(2)." 23. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court and dismissed the appeals filed by the State. The second question as regards the right of the Anglo Indian Schools to admit non-Anglo Indian Students and the students of Asiatic descent was also answered in favour of the school. 24. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court and dismissed the appeals filed by the State. The second question as regards the right of the Anglo Indian Schools to admit non-Anglo Indian Students and the students of Asiatic descent was also answered in favour of the school. 24. Another Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 1737 : (1971) 2 SCC 269 , at Paragraph 6, held as follows: "It will be observed that Article 29(1) is wider than Article 30(1), in that, while any Section of the citizens including the minorities, can invoke the rights guaranteed under Article 29(1), the rights guaranteed under Article 30(1) are only available to the minorities based on religion or language. It is not necessary for Article 30(1) that the minority should be both a religious minority as well as a linguistic minority. It is sufficient if it is one or the other or both. A reading of these two Articles together would lead us to conclude that a religious or linguistic minority has a right to establish and administer educational institutions of its choice for effectively conserving its distinctive language, script or culture, which right however is subject to the regulatory power of the State for maintaining and facilitating the excellence of its standards. This right is further subject to Clause (sic) (2) of Article 29 which provides that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution which is maintained by the State or receives aid out of State funds, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. While this is so these two articles are not inter-linked nor does it permit of their being always read together." 25. In AIR 1977 Orissa 30, the petitioner therein applied for admission to any one of the Medical Colleges in the State of Orissa. His application was rejected. While this is so these two articles are not inter-linked nor does it permit of their being always read together." 25. In AIR 1977 Orissa 30, the petitioner therein applied for admission to any one of the Medical Colleges in the State of Orissa. His application was rejected. The State opposed the the challenge of the petitioner in the High Court on two grounds, viz., (i) in terms of the Home Department Resolution that he was not able to speak Oriya and even though a literate person was also not able to read and write this language, and (2) in terms of the some notification, no adequate proof was produced by him to satisfy the authorities, that he was a permanent resident of the province of Orissa, namely, that one of his parents had lived in the Province of Orissa for a minimum period of 12 years. When the matter came up for hearing, the Standing counsel appearing for the State of Orissa faced with the Constitutional provision of Clause (2) of Article 29 of the Constitution, conceded that the rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground of language, i.e., that he was unable to speak or read and write Oriya was not sustainable, but contended that no exception could be taken to the decision of the appropriate authorities, as regards the second ground is concerned. On the first objection, the Division Bench, at Paragraph 5, held as follows: "We have no doubt that if the petitioner duly and properly applies for admission next year, his application will not be rejected on the ground of his not being able to speak or read and write Oriya." 26. In AIR 1988 Orissa 190, a Division Bench considered the legality of the prospectus prescribing "Oriya" as a subject in the Entrance Test and further prescribing fifty per cent of the marks in Oriya to be secured in order to be eligible to be considered for admission to M.B.B.S. Course. The petitioners therein appeared for the entrance test, but the results were not declared. The petitioners therein appeared for the entrance test, but the results were not declared. Para 8.7 of the Prospectus, impugned in the above reported case, is extracted hereunder: "There shall be one question paper in the Entrance Examination consisting of multiple choice objective type questions covering Physics, Chemistry and Biology (Botany and Zoology) and English taught at the qualifying examination level and Another question paper with separate Answer sheet of Descriptive type in Oriya up to M.E. Standard." 27. It was contended before the Division Bench that Indian Medical Council, which exercises control over medical studies throughout the country, has prescribed the subjects in which tests should be held for entry into medical colleges and these subjects are Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English. Without any rhyme or reason, the State of Orissa has prescribed "Oriya" as one of the subjects in the Entrance Test and such prescription is arbitrary, having no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and accordingly required to be struck down. The Government of Orissa took a stand that the Indian Medical Council, no doubt, has recommended the subjects to be examined at the Entrance Examination for admission to M.B.B.S. Course, but that does not take away the power of the State Government to prescribe any additional subject in which the Entrance Test may also be held. The Government further argued that since "Oriya" has been declared as the official language of the State with effect from 1-4-1985 and it is the only spoken language of the people of the State, it is essential for every medical student to have dialogue with the patients to understand their problems and for that purpose, the Government thought it fit to have a test in "Oriya" also and accordingly, prescription of such condition cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational. 28. Answering the above question, Hon'ble Justice G.B. PATNAIK, (as He then was) held that, "4. The subject "Oriya" has no reasonable connection with the study of medical science. The books are in English, the teaching is in English and the examination is held also in English. The subjects Physics, Chemistry and Biology have undoubtedly some relevance in the study of medical science and that is why probably the Indian Medical Council in its Regulation had fixed the subjects in which the Entrance Test should be held as Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English. The subjects Physics, Chemistry and Biology have undoubtedly some relevance in the study of medical science and that is why probably the Indian Medical Council in its Regulation had fixed the subjects in which the Entrance Test should be held as Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English. If Oriya as a subject cannot have any rational nexus with the study of M.B.B.S. Course, or in obtaining the M.B.B.S. degree, it is not understood how that subject can be introduced at the entrance test to assess the relative merit of the candidates. Relative merit of a candidate has to be assessed through the medium of an entrance test in the subjects which may have some relevance in the context of medical studies. That is why at the entrance test, other subjects like Mathematics have not been introduced. In this view of the matter, it is not understood as to what nexus the subject "Oriya" can have with the object to be achieved, namely assessment of relative merit for the study of M.B.B.S. Course. The nexus or object for having Oriya as a subject in the Entrance Test as given in the counter-affidavit of the opposite parties, namely, the students must have dialogue with the patients, in our opinion, does not appear to be a reasonable one. It is no doubt true that the medical students in course of their practical training may have to examine patients which necessitates dialogue with patients in Oriya, but that object was being achieved and can be very well achieved through the process of making it compulsory for those who have not taken 'Oriya' as a language in their High School Certificate Examination, to obtain a certificate by appearing at a test which is usually conducted by the Government to test the candidates by M.E. standard in Oriya. In fact, the resolution of the Government of Orissa in the General Administration Department No. 21388/Gen. dt. 12.9.1984 indicates that the language test would be held twice a year by the Education and Youth Services Department to test the candidates by M.E. Standard in Oriya to enable them to qualify for employment in public service. The students who have not passed their examination of High School Leaving Certificate with Oriya as a subject may be required to obtain that certificate of passing Oriya test up to M.E. Standard with in a reasonable period. The students who have not passed their examination of High School Leaving Certificate with Oriya as a subject may be required to obtain that certificate of passing Oriya test up to M.E. Standard with in a reasonable period. But even for those who have passed their High School Certificate Examination with Oriya as a subject, prescribing Oriya as a subject in the Entrance Test for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course cannot but be said to be irrational and arbitrary having no nexus with the object to be achieved. As has been stated earlier, the main object of holding an entrance test for admission to the medical colleges in the State must be the object of finding out the relative merit of the candidates and to select the meritorious ones and the said merit can be tested by holding the test in subjects which have some relevance with the study of medical science. That being so, it is not possible to appreciate the stand of the State Government as unfolded in the counter-affidavit that "Oriya" was introduced as a subject in the Entrance Test with the object of making the candidates proficient in their dialogue in Oriya with patients which is necessary in course of medical studies. Equally unreasonable is the stand that 'Oriya' has been the official language with effect from 1.4.1985. It is not known how that can have any relevance with the study of medical science in the medical colleges." 30. Hon'ble Justice AGARWAL in his separate judgment opined that, "the action of the opposite parties, in my opinion, does not subserve any of the objectives and actually the educational advancement in medical education in State is rather sought to be impeded by geographical limitations. The only ground that has been pressed into service on behalf of the opposite parties is that a candidate after completing his course without having knowledge of the local dialect cannot gainfully serve the purpose of his education. I am sorry to observe that the whole approach is illusory and erroneous. Why should one assume that all the students, who would ultimately pass their final M.B.B.S. Course, would enter into active practice in the State of Orissa alone, because the contingency contemplated can arise only in that situation. I am sorry to observe that the whole approach is illusory and erroneous. Why should one assume that all the students, who would ultimately pass their final M.B.B.S. Course, would enter into active practice in the State of Orissa alone, because the contingency contemplated can arise only in that situation. Even assuming so, by living in the State for a period of 5-6 years as a student, one should naturally pick up that much of proficiency in speaking and understanding the Oriya language which may be sufficient for him to deliver the goods." 31. In the above reported case, The Hon'ble Judge also held that, "14. Reference may also be made to Article 29(2) of the Constitution under the Fundamental Rights Chapter protecting the cultural and educational rights of the citizens. According to that, no citizen is to be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of the State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. Cl. (2) thus confers an individual right to the citizens as such and the prospectus prescribing Oriya as a compulsory subject would be discriminatory in nature and offend the protection under Article 29(2) of the Constitution." 32. In AIR 1989 SC 903 : (1989) 2 SCC 145 , the Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of a rule for admission in the evening classes of the Three-Year LL.B. The impugned rule is as follows: "Admission to evening classes is open only to regular employees of Government/ Semi-Government institutions/affiliated colleges/ Statutory Corporations and Government Companies. A candidate applying for admission to the evening classes should attach No Objection/Permission letter from his present employer with his application for admission." 33. Short facts of the above reported case are as follows: The appellant, Deepak Sibal, passed Bachelor of Commerce Examination from the University of Punjab in June, 1981, securing 61.5 per cent marks in the aggregate. On 1.6.1988, he was appointed to the post of Accountant in Agro Chem Punjab Ltd., with effect from 2.6.1988 on probation for a period of six months. Agro Chem Punjab Ltd. is stated to be a joint venture with Punjab Agro Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh, an Undertaking of the Punjab Government. On 1.6.1988, he was appointed to the post of Accountant in Agro Chem Punjab Ltd., with effect from 2.6.1988 on probation for a period of six months. Agro Chem Punjab Ltd. is stated to be a joint venture with Punjab Agro Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh, an Undertaking of the Punjab Government. On 18.7.1988, the appellant, Deepak Sibal, applied for admission in the evening classes of the Punjab University for the Three-Year LL.B. Degree Course with a 'No Objection Certificate' from his employer dated 18.7.1988. He was called for an interview, but he was not selected. On enquiry, he came to know that although his position was 29 in the merit list, he was declared ineligible because he was an employee of a Public Limited Company and did not fall within the exclusive categories, as mentioned in the impugned rule, to which admission in the evening classes was restricted. The other appellant, namely, Miss Ritu Khanna, passed the Bachelor of Arts Examination from the Punjab University securing 418 marks out of 650 marks. She was temporarily appointed to the post of Helper in the office of the Director, Water Resources, Punjab. She also applied for admission in the evening classes of the Three-Year LL.B. Degree Course of the University with all requisite certificates on 18.7.1988. She was granted an interview on 30.7.1988 and although her position in the merit list was 19, she was not selected for admission on the ground that she was only a temporary employee. Both the appellants, being aggrieved by the refusal of the University to admit them in the evening classes of the Three-Year LL.B. Degree Course, filed two separate writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging, inter alia, the constitutional validity of the impugned rule. Five other writ petitions were also filed by the candidates who were refused admission in the evening Classes in view of the impugned rule. Punjab and Haryana High Court, after hearing of the writ petitions, dismissed the writ petitions. By the impugned rule, a classification was made for the purpose of admission to the evening classes. The question was whether the classification was a reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. Punjab and Haryana High Court, after hearing of the writ petitions, dismissed the writ petitions. By the impugned rule, a classification was made for the purpose of admission to the evening classes. The question was whether the classification was a reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Chairman, Department of Laws, Punjab University submitted that the object of starting evening classes was to provide education to bona fide employees who could not attend the morning classes on account of their employment. The object, therefore, was to accommodate bona fide employees in the evening classes, as they were unable to attend the morning classes on account of their employment. Admission to evening classes is not open to the employees in general including private sector employees, but it is restricted to regular employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc., as mentioned in the impugned rule. In other words, the employees of Government/ Semi-Government institutions etc. have been grouped together as a class to the exclusion of employees of private establishments. 34. The Supreme Court while considering the reasonableness of the classification, at Paragraph 20, 22, and 23, held as follows: "20. In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. 22. This observation in Chitra Ghosh's case has also been relied on by the. High Court. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the question of reasonable classification has nothing to do with the identification of sources for admission by an educational institution. We are unable to accept the contention. It is true that an educational institution is entitled to identify sources from which admission will be made to such institution, but we do not find any difference between identification of a source and a classification. If any source is specified, such source must also satisfy the test of reasonable classification and also that it has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. If any source is specified, such source must also satisfy the test of reasonable classification and also that it has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Indeed in Chitra Ghosh's case, it has also been observed that if the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis, it is not for the Courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification. It is very clear from this observation that the sources must be classified on reasonable basis, that is to say, it cannot be classified arbitrarily and unreasonably. 23. The principle laid down in Chitra Ghosh' case ( AIR 1970 SC 35 ) has been reiterated by this Court in a later decision in AIR 1971 SC 1762 : (1971) Supp SCR 608. It has been very clearly laid down by this Court that Government colleges are entitled to lay down criteria for admission in its own colleges and to decide the sources from which admission would be made provided, of course such classification is not arbitrary and has a rational basis and a reasonable connection with the object of the rules. Thus, it is now well established that a classification by the identification of a source must not be arbitrary, but should be on a reasonable basis having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the rules for such admission." 35. In the above reported judgment, the Supreme Court also took note of the fact that if all the seats are to be reserved only to the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions, then it would be amounting to 100% reservation. In this regard, the Supreme Court considered the judgment of AIR 1963 SC 649 : (1963) Supp. (1) SCR 439, which states that, "Thus, the provision of Article 15(4) does not contemplate to reserve all the seats or the majority of the seats in an educational institution at the cost of the rest of the society. The same principle should also apply with equal force in the case of cent per cent reservation of seats in educational institutions for a certain class of persons to the exclusion of meritorious candidates." 36. The same principle should also apply with equal force in the case of cent per cent reservation of seats in educational institutions for a certain class of persons to the exclusion of meritorious candidates." 36. In the case on hand, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Clause 16 of the prospectus, candidates, who have successfully completed the course of training and the internship training, are not guaranteed any appointment in Government service. However, there is plenty of job opportunities in private hospitals in India and abroad. When the medium of instruction is in English, the classification sought to be made between those, who have taken Tamil as first language and Others and who have not, does not sub-serve the objective of advancement of higher medical education. On the other hand, it infringes upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that no State can deny any person equality before law or equal protection of law within the territory of India. Attainment of educational advancement is now sought to be restricted on the ground of language and therefore, the classification is not founded on a reasonable classification. 37. The object sought to be achieved by imposing such a condition is that the candidate, after completing his course, without having the knowledge of the regional language, cannot gainfully serve the purpose of education. If the contingency arises for such successful candidate to apply for recruitment to the post under the control of Health Department to serve in the Medical Colleges/Hospitals in rural areas, such selected candidates can appear and pass the second Class Language Test in Tamil conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, or pass the language test in Tamil referred to in Rule 12-B (i) conducted by the appointing authority or pass the oral 12-B(ii) conducted by the appointing authority, as the case may be, within a period of two years from the date of his appointment. Such being the case, prescription of a condition that the candidate should have taken Tamil as first language, has no nexus with the object of advancement of Medical Education and it amounts to denial of equal opportunity to students coming from other States or even local residents, who have not taken Tamil as first language. 38. Such being the case, prescription of a condition that the candidate should have taken Tamil as first language, has no nexus with the object of advancement of Medical Education and it amounts to denial of equal opportunity to students coming from other States or even local residents, who have not taken Tamil as first language. 38. Incidentally, this Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that in the matter of admission to MBBS course, certain percentage of seats are earmarked for students all over the country to appear and compete as against those reserved seats. The medium of instruction is English. The advancement of Medical Education is not restricted on the basis of the geographical limitation or the language of study in the qualifying examinations, viz., Higher Secondary Course or its equivalent in other states. When such being the case, right of equal treatment conferred under Article 14 on a person, is a corollary on the State to conduct itself as not to deny equal treatment in the case of a certificate or diploma course, and therefore, the imposition of condition as per Clause 4.3 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 39. Moreover, the discrimination involves an element of unfavourable bias, in that, if those who have taken Tamil as first language in qualifying examination alone are to be admitted to the Para-medical Courses (Para-Medical Certificate Course/Diploma in Medical Laboratory) 2008-09, then it would be amounting to 100% reservation. The two Division Bench judgments of the Orissa High Court are squarely applicable to the facts of this present case. As per Article 29(2), 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. If a citizen, who seeks admission into any such educational institution, does not possess the requisite academic qualification or secure the prescribed marks and is denied of admission on those ground, he cannot certainly be heard, as there is no element of infringement of Fundamental Rights. On the other hand, if he has got the academic qualification, but refused admission on the ground of religion, race, caste, language or any of them, then there is a clear breach of fundamental rights. 40. On the other hand, if he has got the academic qualification, but refused admission on the ground of religion, race, caste, language or any of them, then there is a clear breach of fundamental rights. 40. In such view of the matter, what cannot be done by way of legislation, restraining admission on the ground of language, cannot be done by issuing an Executive Order or framing guidelines in the form of prospectus for admission to educational institutions. The chapter of Fundamental Rights is sacrosanct and not liable to be abridged by any Legislative or Executive Act or order, except to the extent provided in the appropriate Article in Part III of the Constitution of India. 41. The contention of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner, having participated in the process of selection, cannot be permitted to challenge the condition in the prospectus, does not stand to scrutiny for the reason that the application of the petitioner itself has not been considered. When the mandate to Article 14 read with Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India, states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India and that the admission to the Educational Institution shall not be discriminated on the ground of religion, race, caste, language or any of them, this Court is of the considered view that Paragraph 4(3) of the prospectus to the Admission to Para-medical Courses (Para-Medical Certificate Course/Diploma in Medical Laboratory) 2008-09, imposing condition that the candidate should have taken Tamil as first language is in violation of Fundamental Rules and ultra vires of the Constitution of India and therefore, liable to be struck down and accordingly, Paragraph 4(3) of the prospectus to the Admission to Para-medical Courses (Para-Medical Certificate Course/Diploma in Medical Laboratory) 2008-09, imposing the condition, is struck down. 42. As stated supra, one seat has been directed to be kept in DMLT course for the year 2008-09. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to a Mandamus as sought for. Therefore, the respondents are directed to admit the petitioner in DMLT (two years course) in Kanyakumari Medical College, Kanyakumari forthwith. 43. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. Petitions allowed.