Teach regional languages in all schools from current session: DB

Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 2: Division Bench of State High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar has directed the J&K Board of School Education to teach regional languages in all the Government and private schools without any discrimination from the current academic session.
The direction was passed in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist and politician Vikram Malhotra.
“In response to various orders passed by this court an affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary to the Government, School Education Department dated 27.03.2018 mentioning that in compliance to Government Order No. 222-Edu of 2006 dated 10.04.2006, the Secretary, J&K State Board of School  Education by communication No. Edu/ Legal/J/ Misc 498/ 2015 dated 13.03.2018 was informed to  furnish the required information and in response to the same, by communication No. F-1 (Acad-C) Languages/B/18 dated 13-3-2018 of the State Board of School Education, it has been informed that from class 1st to 5th, Kashmiri, Dogri, Punjabi, Gojri, Bodhi and Pahari languages are to be taught as one of the compulsory subjects”, the DB observed.
“It has further been stated that insofar as students from 6th  to 8th  are concerned, the subjects Kashmiri, Dogri, Punjabi and Bodhi are to be taught as one of the compulsory subjects in such areas where such languages are spoken as mother tongue in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh provinces”, the DB further observed.
“In the light of this communication of J&K State Board of School Education, we direct the Board to strictly implement Government Order No. 222-Edu of 2006 dated 10.04.2006 in the three provinces, namely, Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, without any discrimination in all schools, as prescribed and in line with the communication of the Secretary J&K State Board of School Education from the current academic session”, the DB said, adding “the direction shall be followed and implemented without any fail”.
“Insofar as secondary school stage students are concerned, it appears that Government has issued Order No. 333-Edu of 2017 dated 19.06.2017 followed by another Government Order No. 464-Edu of 2017 dated 21.07.2017 and by virtue of these two Government orders, Kashmiri, Dogri, Punjabi and Bodhi languages have been made as one of the 6th  compulsory subjects (Graded) at Secondary school stage (9th and 10th students) where such languages are spoken as mother tongue from the academic session 2018-19. This applies to class 9th and 10th”, DB observed.
The DB further said, “it appears J&K Board of School Education has some reservation with regard to inclusion of the 6th compulsory subject because it would go against the norms of the Central Board of School Education/National Open Schools prescriptions”, adding “to emphasize that, it has been stated in the affidavit that CBSC/National Open School norms prescribe five compulsory subjects and not six. In this regard it is stated that the Government and Education Board are seriously considering as to how to resolve this conflict”.
“This issue is a policy decision that has to be resolved by the departments concerned”, the DB said, adding “we leave it to the Government to take a   decision on this issue in consultation with the J&K Board of School Education and to decide as to how the issue of languages namely Kashmiri, Dogri. Punjabi, Bodhi should be addressed insofar as students of  9th and 10th standards are concerned and a pragmatic and objective decision should be taken on this issue in the light of Government Order No. 333-Edu of 2017 dated l9.06.2017 and Government Order No. 464-Edu of 2017 dated 21.07.2017 on or before 31.05.2018”.
“Insofar as the implementation of language up to 8th standard is concerned, the orders already passed shall come into force with immediate effect”, the DB further said.
Advocate Tarun Sharma appeared on behalf of Advocate Abhinav Sharma for the petitioner while as AAG Ravinder Gupta alongwith Advocate Pratiksha Parmar appeared for the respondents before the Division Bench.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here