STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. versus PADAM DEVI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 90 · Decided: 16-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
, 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. 
.,. 
""' 
v. 
PADAM DEVI AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2002 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14. 
-~ 
c 
Policy decision-Judicial interference with-Held framing of 
administrative policy is within exclusive realm of Executive-Court should not 
interfere unless policy decision is capricious, arbitrary or violative of 
Constitutional or Statutory provisions-Administrative Law. 
Equality-State of Himachal Pradesh-Dairy Scheme-Gopal Sahayak 
D Scheme viz. Veterinary Scheme-Training imparted to participants under these 
schemes-Additional training imparted to Gopal Sahayaks as Veterinary 
Pharmacists-Additional training not extended to .trainees under Dairy 
Scheme-Held not discriminatory-Classification between trainees of two 
schemes not invalid 
,......_ 
E 
With a view to encouraging unemployed youth to engage in dairy 
farming the Government of Himachal Pradesh formulated a Dairy Scheme 
in 1981 for small landowners coming from villages in the milk shed areas. 
Governmental assistance to candidates under the scheme was directed towards 
helping them set up dairy farms by providing them cattle after completion of 
F 
their training and the finances requisite for rearing cattle. In 1992 State of 
Himach.i>I Pradesh formulated another scheme called the 'Gopal Sahayak 
"(. 
Vojna' viz. the Veterinary Scheme. The object of the Scheme was to (i) reach 
veterinary assistance to those engaged in livestock breeding and farmers; (ii) 
to train Gopal Sahayaks for this purpose so that at least one of the self-
employed Gopal Sahayak was available in each Panchayat. Unemployed 
G matriculate males who were residents of the concerned panchayat were 
entitled to participate in this Scheme. Candida~es were to be selected by a 
Selection Committee. Between 1993 to 1998, 808 veterinary dispensaries were 
opened by State Government with one dispensary for every two panchayats. 
"' 
· As a result of this there was no scope of self-employment for Gopal Sahayaks. 
~ 
H 
Therefor~, with a view to ultimately absorbing these Gopal Sahayaks as 
90 
~. 
STATEv. PADAMDEVl 
91 
Veterinary Pharmacists in the State Government the Gopal Sabayaks were A 
provided with opportunity of availing of additional training as Veterinary 
Pharmacists. 
Candidates who had been imparted training under the Dairy Scheme 
filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming a right to be considered 
for training as Veterinary Pharmacists alongwith Gopal Sahayaks. The High . B 
Court issued directions to the State Government to consider the claim of the 
trainees under Dairy Scheme alongwith Gopal Sahayaks for training as 
Pha'i'macists holding that no rational distinction could be drawn between 
candidates who had completed training under Dairy Scheme and Veterinary 
Scheme. Conteillions raised on behalf of the appellant-State viz. (i) High Court C 
should not interfere with policy decision of Government which was not 
arbitrary and (ii) the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter 
because the case related to employment under the State and was thus within 
the purview of Administrative Tribunal were rejected. 
Against the decision of High Court State preferred appeals before this D 
Court. However, under threat of contempt petitions initiated before High 
Court it framed Scheme as directed by High Court. Before this Court it was 
>-
contended on behalfofthe respondents that having framed the Scheme State 
Government cannot reopen the issue before the Supreme Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Scheme dated 16.4.1999 had been prepared by the 
appellant-State under threat of contempt proceedings initiated by the 
respondents before the High Court. Therefore, the mere formulation of the 
Scheme on 16.4.1999 cannot debar the appellant from questioning the 
correctness of the impugned judgment. [97-C, E) 
2. The reasons given by the appellant-State as to why it made special 
provisions for the Gopal Sahayaks _cannot be termed to be irrational or 
arbitrary. The decision to make a special concession for Gopal Sahayaks in 
E 
F 
the matter of additional training as Veterinary Pharmacists was admittedly G 
a policy decision. The framing ofadministrative policy is within the exclusive 
realm of the Executive and its freedom to do so is, as a general rule, not 
interfered with by Courts unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious 
.>-
or arbitrary and not

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