STATE OF H. P. AND ORS. versus HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 20-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 5 S.C.R. 533 
STATE OF H. P. AND ORS. 
v. 
· HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK PRISHIKSHAN 
KENDRA SANGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 3385 of 2011) 
APRIL 20, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
EDUCA TIONIEDUCA T/ONAL INSTITUTIONS: 
A 
B 
c 
Vocational Training Centres (VTCs) - Permitted to run 
various courses in the State - Cabinet decision dated 
25.11.2008 to wind up certain courses - Writ petition filed 
before the High Court - Subsequently, Cabinet decision 
dated 18. 7. 2009 discontinuing three courses, namely, Art and D 
Craft, Library Science and PT/ - High Court quashing the 
Cabinet decision dated 18. 7.2009 - HELD: The Cabinet 
considered the proposal of the State Council for Vocational 
Training and after deliberation, took the decision to continue 
various courses under SCVT except the said three courses 
E 
- Inasmuch as the Cabinet decision dated 18. 7.2009 was not 
the subject matter or issue of the wri{ petition, State was not 
in a position to highlight all details before the High Court -
High Court was not justified in interfering with the Cabinet 
decision dated 18. 7. 2009 - The quashing of Cabinet decision 
F 
without analyzing the pros and cons restricts the State's 
constitutional authority and powers to frame policy especially 
in such vital areas like imparting technical education, and, 
therefore, is not acceptable- Administrative law. 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
G 
Article 226 -
Writ petition - Judgment reserved on 
3. 7. 2009 - Subsequent Cabinet decision dated 18. 7.2009 -
Quashed by High Court - HELD: There was no prayer in the 
533 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A , writ petition for quashing of any policy or scheme or decision 
of the Government but the petitioner only prayed for cerlain 
directions for admission of the students in courses under 
SCVT for the session 200_7-20(}8 - The conclusion of the 
High Coult quashing tfle Cabinet decision dated 18. 7. 2009 
B 
without reopening the case and hearing both the sides about 
the matter as to the subsequent· development and as a 
consequence issuing several direc(ions is. unacceptable ,and 
-
-
• 
• • 
-
.. ~ ·, 
• ,. 
'' ,, 
J 
• ~ 
contrary to well established principles - It was but appropriate 
to reopen the case, permit the petitioner- association to 
c . amend the relief porlfon, afford adequate oppottunity to the 
State to put forth their stand for modifying the. 'policy' curtailing 
certain courses under SCVT - The decision of.the Cabinet 
• 
-
1 
'. 
• 
._ 
-
' 
... 
ought no(. to be interfered with in judicial review so lightly as . 
has been· done· in' the instant case - E.ducation/Educational 
0 
Institutions -Administrative Law - Policy decision·-, Judicial 
Review - .Subsequent event. 
' 
. 
. . 
• , 
·· 1 
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: 
Legitimate expectation - Vocational Training' Centres 
E 
(VTCs) permitted to run various courses - Subsequently, 
decision taken to wind up certain courses -·High Court holding 
that YTCs were entitled to run' all the courses under the 
principles of 'legitimate expectation• - HELD:· Education is a 
dynamic system and cd1.1rseS!subjecfs have to keep changing 
F , with regard to market demand, employability, potential 
· availability of infrastructure etc. - No institute ·can have a 
legitimate right to run a'particular course for ever and it is the· 
pervasive power and authority vested in the Governmen,t to 
frame policy and guidelines for progressive and legitimate 
G growth of the society .and create balances in the arena 
inclusive of imparting technical education from time to time. 
JUDICIAL REVIEW: 
f' 
. 
·,\< 
· Policy decision of State Government with ·regard to 
H 
STATE; OF H. p:: v. HIMACHAL' PRADE:SH NIZllVYAVSAYIK 'S35 
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH 
pernfittinfJ Vocationar'.:rrainirig centres· to· fu'iVtecfihical ·A 
courses ..!•Judiciarreview.of.::. HELDT'lnasmuch as ultimately 
it is 'the i-espdnsibility''6f the'Sfate to 'provide goocJ'eddcatibn, 
trairiin1{ and empfoymerit,tit is 15est suited to frame, a 'policy 
or' either. modify/after'' fl'decis'ion°depending 1•on· the 
circumstance basecftbn releVantand1 acceptable "iriaterialsv..:. 
B 
Government is free to 1frame its policy/alter-&r modify it with 
regard to manpower requirement ifi'VafioDs ;professibnai arid 
technical fields - The course do not substitute ·its views 'lin 
the decision of the State Government with regard to policy 
matters. 
-' : 
\<,• 
•.• \,, 
~, ..... _ ·'"~ q 
'"I,~ 
.. "" h 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.