Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the Cabinet decision and issuing directions, as such policy decisions are not subject to judicial interference absent a specific challenge, and set aside the High Court’s order.

Summary

The State of Himachal Pradesh filed a civil appeal against the Himachal High Court’s order that quashed a Cabinet decision dated 18 July 2009, which discontinued three vocational courses (Art and Craft, Library Science, PTI) in Vocational Training Centres (VTCs). The writ petition originally sought directions for admission of students to SCVT courses for the 2007‑08 session and did not challenge the Cabinet’s later policy decision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court improperly interfered with a subsequent policy decision that was not pleaded, failed to reopen the case or allow amendment, and wrongly applied the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the VTCs. The Court emphasized that policy decisions in education are within the State’s constitutional authority and may be reviewed only when they violate constitutional limits. Consequently, the High Court’s order quashing the Cabinet decision and its directions were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The High Court’s jurisdiction to quash a Cabinet decision that was not pleaded in the writ petition.
Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation entitles VTCs to continue the three discontinued courses.
The extent of judicial review permissible over State policy decisions in technical education.
Whether the High Court should have reopened the case and permitted amendment of reliefs.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

administrative lawjudicial reviewpolicy decisionlegitimate expectationvocational trainingtechnical educationConstitution of IndiaArticle 226Cabinet decisionwrit petition

Judgment

[2011) 5 S.C.R. 533

STATE OF H. P. AND ORS. A
v.
· HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK PRISHIKSHAN
KENDRA SANGH
(Civil Appeal No. 3385 of 2011)
B
APRIL 20, 2011
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

EDUCA TIONIEDUCA T/ONAL INSTITUTIONS:
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.
f'
JUDICIAL REVIEW:
. ·,\<

· Policy decision of State Government with ·regard to
H
STATE; OF H. p:: HIMACHAL' PRADE:SH NIZllVYAVSAYIK 'S35 v.
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH
pernfittinfJ Vocationar'.:rrainirig to· fu'iVtecfihical ·A centres·
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 releVantand 1acceptable "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 . n, ~
c
\<,• • . • \,, ..... _

~ ·.., _., ~ {1 ~ • ,i· _ : i·f, -~.1 !p. ~J 1 'ir_\:·~ · (· { • .~ .... t
. ·· Members of the· respondent-Association, pursuant to
the' in'vitation ot"the 1 ~ppellant-stafe. Gove'riimerit'. i.ri 'tile
year 2004, ··- applied 'for openi'ng v'o·catlorial·'. -
Training
••~···~~-. -~· r··,·~'-
Centres (VTCs) at different places i.n the ~State and
. . , 4•
were
· :o ( ll n ,• , •. '': ' i .r
permitted to run various cours.es including Art and Craft,
• r I · I . . . • t~ • . < • • ,( •'\J - ·• .''• i :~ . . - . ; . • , • • J'
Hotel Management,.,Ayur:veda, Pharmacist,, Physical
Training'
~,~ ••.'•
lnstrlictor'(PTl),,Libral)t Sc-iE!'nce'etc'. 'However,·
··I.,~,.~··•<~.~\
',11'':•>··.)
on
27-4.~006 a d.~ci~ic;>f;,y..a~· ~~~~·~-in 1~he. rrieetings1 'qfJ~e
State c;ouncil; for
.Vocat,iorial Training ($C\(1'.) tO wind· up
certain
· '.(~·
courses
': f '\~ '~.'
a'nd',''u1timateiy~.
• ,-.}·.,,, :U. I
in".the'cabinei
,.JtJtJ) ~· .. .,.;·/.·~1 ~~,
me'eting ·i=
·~. ~.1•.,L
held on 25.11.2008 dec1s1on. was taken
•• ·,,·11 f.;.• •
not to.. , allow
•. ', :' ~.1.)·.·~ ·~. ,.r,.i~, ,~ ··.l~·
adm1ss1on to some courses for the academic
I . . ~~. I I '
sessiont I . • ~ . "' .- . ' < '

2007-2008. The respondent filed a writ peetition before: ttie
High Court. Subsequently;"the Government' constituted
eight insp~ction 'committees for Inspection of Vocational F
Training Centres and the recommendations of ttie
Committees were placed before the State Cabinet in itS
meeting dated 18.7.2009. Th'e High Court allowed the writ
petition and quashed the subsequent Cabinet decision
dated 18.7.2009 by which the three courses, namely, Art G
and Craft, Library Science and PTI, were discontinued.
. -
, , In the instant appear filed by the :state Government,
it was .~ontended for t~e appel~ant 't.hat)he 't:ligh~ Cqu'rt
... ·- ! t -~ ~ k,p l ...... l ·'....,. . ~ < ·~' ~ , ~ ••• '-'. ,.,_

'H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R.

A committed an error in considering and quashing the
Cabinet decision dated 18.7.2009, which was a
subsequent event, when the writ petitioner had not so
pleaded or amended the original prayer in the writ
petition. It was also submitted that the High Court,
s without appreciating the stand of the State Government
in modifying the 'policy', not only quashed the Cabinet
decision, but also issued various directions which were
all unacceptable.

Allowing the appeal, the Court
c
HELD: 1. A perusal of the prayers in the writ petition
clearly shows that the respondent-association had not
sought for quashing of any policy or scheme or decision
or order of the State Government but only prayed for
D certain directions for admission of students in SCVT
courses for the session 2007-08. It is relevant to point out
that after hearing the matter at length, the Division Bench
reserved it for judgment on 03.07.2009. Before the
pronouncement of the judgment, that is, on 12.08.2009,
E the Cabinet of the State Government after taking note of
various aspects took a decision on 18.07 .2009
discontinuing three courses under SCVT, namely, i) Art
and Craft, ii) Library Science and iii) PTI. The High Court,
after getting the said decision through the Advocate
F General, without reopening the case and hearing both
sides about the matter as to the subsequent
development, I.e., the decision of the Cabinet taken on
18.07.2009, simply quashed and set aside the same by
Issuing various directions. Such a course is
G unacceptable and contrary to the well established
principles. [para 7-8) [544-F-H; 545-F-H; 546-B]
1.2 Since there was no prayer for quashing of any
decision of the State Government much less the
subsequent Cabinet decision dated 18.07.2009, and if the
H
STATE OF H. P. v. HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK 537
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH
High Court was interested in going into the said decision A
that too after reserving the judgment on 03.07.2009, it was
but appropriate to reopen the case, permit the
respondent-association to amend the relief portion,
afford adequate opportunity to the State to put-forth their
stand for modifying the "policy" curtailing certain B
courses under SCVT. Admittedly, the High Court has not
resorted to such recourse and simply quashed the
decision of the Cabinet dated 18.07 .2009 and issued
various directions which Is impermissible. [para 8] [546-
B-D] C
2.1 The decision of the Cabinet generally ought not
to be interfered with in judicial review so lightly as has
been done in the instant case. The quashing of the
Cabinet decision without analyzing the pros and cons in
a manner seeks .to restrict the State's constitutional D
authority and powers to frame policy especially in such
vital areas like imparting technical education, and,
therefore, is not acceptable. The Cabinet considered the
proposal of the State Council for Vocational Training and
after deliberation, took the decision to continue various E
courses under SCVT except the courses at SI.· No. 1 (Art
and Craft), SI. No. 4 (Library Science) and SI. No. 7 (PTI).
Though in the supplementary affidavit, the State has not
highlighted the reason for discontinuing the three
courses, the High ·court presumed that the State is F
precluded from taking fresh/revised policy in the matter
of imparting technical education. In fact, in the said
decision, the State has not barred all the institutions from
continuing the courses already notified under SCVT. The
Cabinet decided to discontinue only three courses.· G
Inasmuch as the said Cabinet decision d;;tted 18.07.2009
was not the subject-matter or issue of the writ petition,
the State was not in a position to highlight all the details
before the Court. Accordingly, the High Court was not
justified in interfering with the Cabinet decision dated H
538 , SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 5 S.C.R.

. A 18.07.2009 which was· not the issue or challenge in the
writ petition. [para 9~10) [546-F-O; 547-F-H; 548-A-B] .
. 2.2 Inasmuch ~s, ultimately, it ·is the responsibility. of
the State. to provide good education, training and
employment, it is best suited to frame a policy or either
8
modify/alter a decision depending on the circumstance
based on· relevant and acceptable materials. The courts
do not substitute· its views in the decision of the' State
Government with regard to policy matters. In fact, the
courts must refuse to· sit as appellate authority or super
C legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation or policy
deci.sion. of the Government unless it runs counter to the
~andate of the Constitution. [para 11) [548~F-G]

2.3 With regard to the importance of human
D resources, especially manpower requirement in various
professional and technical fields, the Government is free
to frame its poticy, alter or modify the same as to the
' f ' : ' '< I

needs of the society. In such matters, the courts cannot
interfere lightly as if the Go,vernment is unaware of the
E situation. [para 12) [548-H; 549-A]
' ' ~"
'- '
· · '' < :

3. The High Court·also erred in coming to the
conclusion that the respondent-association was entitled
to ·run all the courses under the principle of 'legitimate
F expectation'. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that
education is a dynamic system and courses/subjects
have to keep changing with regard to market demand,
employability potential, availability of infrastructure, etc.
No institute can have a legitimate right or expectation to
run a particular course forever and it is the pervasive
G power and authority vested in the Government to frame
policy and guidelines for progressive and legitimate
growth of the society and create balances in the arena
inclusive of imparting technical education from time to
time. Inasmuch as the institutions found fit were allowed
' '
H
STATE OF\ H.iP. y. HIMACHAt:pRAO:F,:S_H:NJ;Zl; VXAVl)AYIK 539
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH
to run other coµrses except the. three ,mentioned1above, .A
.the~ doctrine . ofi, 11egitlmate ··expectation \was n.ot
disregarded, by the .State:-,.{para 10~~ 1] ·[548·.C; ·548-D·El
~: ,·',~· :·~
.• l:;.1',1 ·') ·-~".:
i, 1 i·,f ;_ .-";; ~ >'\. _..'
·\' r .\.:; .• J ,' •

. 4.· T~e impug~e~. ord;e~ ?f ~~~. High 9?urt quaslli~g
the. Cabinet decisi~n dated :~8:07.2009 and i,ssl!~~g 18
:-'arious directions inclu~ing a'.Nar1 ~ing., cost,, 19f
Rs.25,000/- in favour of the respondent-association, are • I ' 1 • . • ' ' f ' I. : I. \ •

set aside. Jpara 13] .£.~~9-D] . .\ , .;, .. , 1 . · .., ~i

·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :·Civil App~al 'No.
33B5of2011:· pc'l"t .,.
1 / 1' " ' ' 1 '"· 1 • · .•• ,,·.;,,r·1r ·' ·C
. \. '-·i

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2009 of the
High Court of H.P. at' Sliirhla' in:CWP No. 2948 of 2008. .
J 1 ' : ' I' : .~ ' C . • ' j • '' ':'~ I ;

•·--··Altaf Ahmed, S.P. Jain and·Himinder LaLJor the
Appellants.'; ·'"' .·. . r .·1 " - , ··:· l'':,l<:ic - ·n .. : · , -_. :1 tD
:1.l : t· 1 "-~.t_· r' •li•K ·'' :'~-~·i .. · (·t :·~!~· ~: ·:; L-1 • ·, ;·_,
,:..T)oop Chaudhary, Ashi,s~,Moj1an1 and ~-K.· Mohanfor:the
, 1

Res.ponde.nt.t,. ;'' .· .. · -· ,(.;. :'" .. , •,· '. · 1 , .
L1•'~~·'· 1 l!)Ult~' 1 • •• ~;':• t;;''t
, '. .Jhe. Ju~~~enl .~f th,~ ~ourt was deh~~r.7.d, by'" , , .. , E
1
. "' ' P.SATAASIVAM,J. 1.1·teave'· granted>':,
. l . ·~ '.\ ;\, ·., 1 .'I• ' ;If;' ," • ' ·~ .:

, ··.2. 'This appeal is.directed against the final:judgment and
order dated 12.08.2009,passed by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh -~t. Shimla in C.W.P: No. 2948 of 2008 wherein the F
Division Bench of the High Courtallowed the writ.petition filed
by the respondent herein.

3. Brief facts: '.'

(a) In pursuance of the recommendation of the All.ln'dia G
Council for Technical Education (AiCTE), the Government of
India appointed a Committee called the National Trade
Certification Investigation Committee in'the ·year· 1951 with
.. jnstructions' to prepare a scheme·fot thEfestablisnment of'an
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A All India Trades Board which would award certificates of
proficiency to craftsmen in various engineering and building
trades. The said Committee made certain recommendations
and while accepting the same, a central agency for coordinating
the training programmes and awarding certificates of
B proficiency in craftsmanship on an all-India basis was created.
The Government of India decided to transfer the administration '
of the training organization under the Directorate General of
Resettlement and Employment to the control of the State
Government concerned, retaining for itself the function of
c coordinating craftsmen training and laying down the training
policy.

(b) Accordingly, in consultation with the State Governments
and other concerned parties, National Council for Vocational
Training (NCVT) was set up in the year 1956 and was entrusted
D with the functions relating to establishing and awarding National
Trade Certificates to craftsmen, prescribing standards and
curriculum for craftsmen training in the technical and vocational
trades throughout the country and advising and assisting the
Central Government on the overall training policy and
E programmes. On similar lines, State Council for Vocational
Training (SCVT) was created to deal with all the matters relating
to Vocational Training at the level of the State. The Government
of Himachal Pradesh, in consonance with National Policy of
Education (NPE) 1986, as revised from time to time, decided
F to adopt a policy for producing manpower in the conventional
as well as in emerging areas of the Engineering and
Technology and in other professional disciplines. The
Government, keeping in view the financial constraints to meet
the immense requirement of investment in the field, also
G decided to encourage private sector participation in the State
for which the Government was to extend all possible facilities
and also to provide for some concessions for arranging the
necessary infrastructural facilities for the establishment of
technical and other professional institutions in the State. In order
.H
STATE OF H. P. v. HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK 541
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
to fulfill this objective, the State Government framed Technical A
Education Policy and the Department of Technical Education
issued guidelines for Vocational Training Centres (VTCs) in
Himachal Pradesh.

(c) In the year 2004, the State Government through its 8
Department of Technical Education invited private parties/
institutions to open Vocational Training Centres (VTCs) within
the State of Himachal Pradesh. These Centres were permitted
to admit students for the permitted courses on such terms and
conditions as provided under the said guidelines. In pursuance
of the said invitation, the members of the respondent- Cl
Association applied for opening VTCs at different places within
the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Letters of Intent were
issued to the members of the respondent-Association
permitting them to run various courses including Art and Craft,
Hotel Management, Ayurveda Pharmacist, Physical Training D
Instructor, Library Science etc.

(d) A decision was taken in the meeting of SCVT held on
27.04.2006 to wind up certain courses for which there was little
scope of employment or self employment and in its place new E
courses as per demand of the market/industry be started.
Thereafter, in the meeting held on 21.08.2007, while confirming
the proceedings of earlier meeting dated 27.04.2006, the State
Council granted approval to the opening of 161 new VTCs and
for renewal of 112 already existing VTCs. F
(e) Despite the endeavour of the State Government to
promote and encourage the participation of the private sector,
it had not accorded permission to the institutions to run the
vocational courses for the academic Session 2007-08. The
members of the respondent's Association made G
representations to the State Government with regard to the
same. Thereafter, in the meeting held on 23.10.2008, after
detailed deliberation on various issues, it was decided that all
the. issues raised in the meeting including cancellation of
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS: [2011) 5 S.C.R.

·A affiliation,tpermission for fresh admissions and starting of fresh
courses in different VTCs would be examined by a Sub~
Committee to be constituted and headed by the Chief
Secretary. Accordingly, the Sub-Committee was·constituted on
25.10.2008. On 22.11.2008, the Sub-Committee, so
B constituted, submitte-d its report to the Government and the
matter was taken Lip in the Cabinet -meeting held on
'25'.11.2008. The effect of the 'decision of the Cabinet was· that
·for' thei' academic session 2007-08 there 'would be no
admission' for ttie courses which are being taught by the
c respondent herein and subsequent to 'the Cabinet decision,
\o . . ' I

Government Order dated 19.12 .2008 was issued. In
compliance with the, Cabinet decision dated 25.11.2008 and
the Government Order dated 19.12.2008, eight Inspection
Committees were constituted by the Director, Technical
Education for the inspection of Vocational Training Centres
0
(VTCs) and recommendations of these Committees were sent
to the Government and placed before the -State Cabinet in its
meeting dated 18,07.2009.

- _, (f) Challenging the decision of the Cabinet dated
E 25.11.2008,'the respondent herein filed writ petition being CWP
No. 2948 of 2008 before the High'Court of Himachal Pradesh.
On 12.08.2009, t~e High Court, by the impugned order, allowed
the writ petition a11d quashed subsequent cabinet decision
dated 18.07.2009 discontinuing the three courses, namely, SI.
F No. 1 (Art and Craft), SI. No. 4 (Library Science) and SI. No. 7
(PTI). In addition, the Court also issued various directions and
awarded cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Aggrieved by the said decision,
the appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court by
way of special leave petition.
G
4. Heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the
appellant-State and Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, learned senior
~oun~el for the respondent. ·

5. :Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for
H
STATE OF H. P.\1£ HIMAGHAL PRADESH;NIZl:VYAVSAYIK 543 ·:
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the State, after taking 'us·through the relief prayed for. in the writ A•\
petitionarid:the stand of.the State submitted.that after hearing
arguments1and reserving.the.judgment :on 03:07.2009, the
Division Bench of ·the:High Court committed· an error in
considering the· Cabinet·decision dated· 18.07.2009 which is
a subsequent event·and quashing•the samewhen the writ Bt-.
petitioner has not pleaded or amended. the.original prayer in
the writ petition. He also pointed out that without appreciating
the'stan'd of the State in modifying tne·"policy";'tt)e' High' Court
not only quashed the c~abinet decision but atso issued various
directions 1wt1icif a're all\rnatceptabte: the other:hand, Mr. On c ,
Anoop ·Chaudharj; learnel.i seni9t-counsel for ttie 'respondent
submitted lnat on· the principle of'legifimate 1ex'p'e'ttation'. the
State is not justified in altering the pdlfc{fo1-pr~m6te private
insti.W!ion.~ t~.r1~~w.~ti~~e!}rainirg; 9n .y~r/~.u.~, s~.b!~c,~s. . .1.
6: 'Admittedly, the"--respor\den't 'frerein';which is an o· i
unregistefeC:l~·ass'ociation' 'bf 'Vocatiohal ;Trainir1g Centres
(vTCs) filed'·wi"ifpetitibh'before'the HigtPCou'rf
- ' . ' ' '. •:.4 ,. t
·). :
of
-
Himachal
.,.. '1 ' . ·' . . ' :i ,,... ' ' 'i ' - 1
Pradesh at Shimla through·its President seeking 1certain reliefs.
According to the 'resp6nC!er\t1Association; ·their"members are
imparting training
•• '-J •.
in,• different
'~i
Vocational
· ' 1-/.-;1' ...
Training.Centre::;\and
~
',,,"• . . ·' \¥. J .• _.,
E_.
are also recognized by the Hirnacha! Pradesh SCVT. In order
(. f - ; ; f' • •: ., , I -.:-';,; ,. ,, .,_. · ' , '., ·-,_~, ' .• 0 1 1• !l !

to appreciate the rival ·conten~i<;>n~ •.it is 1,1seful.to
• i • Jt '). .
refer the relief
l ...)• . . - ~ .•,. ~ ~ I • ,

prayed for rn the writ petition which reads as under:-
.<, . '· 1'·. 1
\. !.:' .... •'.'•':'.° _'11j )''.~ '~) :~~··,.:Jl.~ I.!.\
,"It is, therefore,.hur:nblyprayedJh.at this.y.Jfit petiti9n,rn~Y, F
',be allowed,~ ' · ~- ' · · " · ·• '· ~,- ··:'\.'·' i·.. :·...
I •~l,V .. i ·,f;·~ ,~~>· ·. ('it;.<"·l:'~.-1f."·l{'!'.~·"l - r,3 ,.~~·", !
1
- (i) ·: the respondeiit?·may be directed' b/iss'ufng .wrft of".i
\~ . ; .. . ·- l • ..
,,. ' ' ' ' l ~ ....... ' ' ' • - ~
l,.; '.'
-·. mandamus to '.h,old admission_ test fof:admitting '
ir .;u'•• students in 'sc\/T.Coursl!s 1for"the· sessioh'l26o7F·:
'- . 08 and consequently sponso( the 1dindiditeg td'the ·~· G:.
· ' " ·•:vocational ·Training' Centres .(VT9_s)'1appiove'c! ·6y·_~
'· < the res!)ondents for scVr·cou'rs'es; r: ~ .. · 1·2 ' : -:~ .i.....
. , ~. -·:;t •._ . . •. . , ( .r'\_ .....: ~ .. ~~:,,.1-'')_.,.:J tiw-·• v. c. -~ L"';~: \~Q . )1

; (ii) . that ·in case ifis felt by the :respondents tharthere .~,
are certain other formalities which are required to Hri
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R.

A be completed or there are shortcomings required
to be removed by a particular Vocational Training
Centre (VTC), the respondents may take corrective
measures themselves and the concerned VTC may
be allowed to remove the shortcoming within
B reasonable time and the course may continue
uninterruptedly;

(iii) that the respondents may be directed to commence
admissions process forthwith for all the permitted
courses for which the Vocational Training Centres
c (VTCs) were affiliated/approved in the past and the
students may be allocated to the concerned PTC
at the earliest;

(iv) that in case the central counseling has become
D difficult for the respondents, the concerned
Vocational Training Centre (VTC) may be permitted
to admit students of its own by giving due regard
to the minimum standards as fixed by the
respondents for a particular course;
E
(v) Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also be granted, in
the interest of justice. Costs may also be awarded."

7. A perusal of all the prayers clearly shows that the
F respondent-association had not sought for quashing of any
policy or scheme or decision or order of the State Government
but only prayed for certain directions for admission of students
in SCVT courses for the session 2007-08. The State has filed
reply conveying its stand. It was highlighted that the institution
G established must fulfill the requirements of the norms and
guidelines of various apex bodies like AICTE, Pharmacy
Council of India, NCVT and SCVT. It was also averred in the
reply that the whole issue of admission to VTCs was taken up
in the Cabinet meeting dated 25.11.2008 and, consequently,
H
STATE OF H. P. v. HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK 545
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

a G.O. was issued on 19.12.2008. It is seen from the impugned A
order of the High Court that while hearing the matter, the
Division Bench, on 28.05.2009, directed learned Addi.
Advocate General to seek instructions from the State as to what
was the stand of the Government with regard to holding of
examination for these institutions. A supplementary affidavit B
was filed by the State Government on 02.07.2009. The Court
also recorded the stand of the Government that for the year
2008·09, institutions were permitted to run the courses except
Art and Craft, Library Science and Physical Training Instructor
(PTI). Ultimately, the High Court has concluded that the State, c
by permitting the members of the petitioner's association to
open the institution in the State of Himachal Pradesh after
investing huge amount of money have generated legitimate
expectation in them that in future also they shall be permitted
to run the courses, -which were permitted at the time of setting 0
up of the institutions and further that the members of the
petitioner's association cannot be permitted to be left in a lurch
by the arbitrary action of the State Government by denying them
running of these courses. The Court has also observed that
there is no explanation why the State Government has not
permitted the running of these courses. After arriving at such E
conclusion in the last paragraph, the High Court allowed the
petition and quashed the decision taken by the Cabinet on
18.07.2009. It is relevant to point out that after hearing the
matter at length, the Division Bench reserved it for judgment
on 03.07.2009. Before the pronouncement of the judgment, that F
is, on 12.08.2009, the Cabinet of the State Government after
taking note of various aspects took a decision on 18.07.2009
discontinuing three courses under SCVT, namely, i) Art and
Craft, ii) Library Science and iii) PTI. The High Court, after
getting the said decision through the Addi. Advocate General, G
without reopening the case and hearing both sides about the
matter as to the subsequent development, i.e., the decision of
the Cabinet on 18.07.2009, simply quashed and set aside the
same by issuing various directions.
H
546 SUPREME
. COURT REPORTS
.
.. " '[2011] 5 s.c:.R.

A · · 8: We have ~!ready adverted to the relief prayed'for bY the· ·
respondeht-associati.oh 'in thi{ said writ pe,titiO!):, Admittedly, ,
there is' ~Q prayer for quashing of even earlier Cabinet.decision ·
or6rdef of the government. The 'conclusion of the High Court
quashing the 'cabinet decision dated 18.07.2009 and as a .
s· co'nsequence issuin~t·several directions. is unacceptable' and •
contrary to the well established'principles. First of all, there Was''.
I' _ r' . i' ! '. ·!\
l• . _' · l
no prayer for quashing of any decision·of the' State Government
much less the' subsequ'ent Cabin'et deCision elated 18.07.2009.
1
If the High' Court' was Interested in going into the said decision •
c that tao after r~serving' the judgment on 03.07.2009, 'it is but f'
appropriat~ j'to reopen the case', permit' the petitioner's '·
assoba'tion to' ameri~ the. r'eliet' portion, afford adequate
opp'ortunity to the State to put-forth' their stand for modifying this '·
"policy" curtailing certain bourses unde~ SCVT. Admittedly, the1
. ·High_ Court has not resor!E;d, tO syc,h· recoL,Jrse and sii)'lply
0
quashed the decision oft.he Cabinet dated 18.07.2009 and
iSSUed Va(iOUS direction's' Which '
are impermissible.
. . . ,. . . • I
' .
'
. ' .

' 9. As rightly pointed out by'Mr. Altaf Ahmed, without any
arguments having been heard, with'out there being any question
E raised by any party as to the validity df the Cabinet ·decision
dated ·18.07:2009.and without the same being in question, or
any relief sought for in the writ petition, the High Court has gone
into the said decision of. the Cabinet having taken place after
the judgment was reserved" The decision of the Cabinet,·
F generally ought not to be interfered With in'judicial review sd ·
lightly as·has been.done· in the present case. The quashfrig of
the Cabinet decision without analyzing the pros and 'cons in the '
manner seeks to restrict the State's constitutional authority and
powers to ·frame policy e'speciallt in such vital areas· like '
G imparting technical education is not acceptable.' The following ·
is the outcome of the Cabinet decision dated 18.07.2009:

"Dated: 18.07.2009
, '

H
STATE OF H.P. v. HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK 547
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

ITEM N0.37 A
Government of Himachal Pradesh
Department of General Administration
(Confidential & Cabinet)
Subject:- Regarding State Council for vocational 8
Training

In the meeting of Cabinet held on 18.07.2009, the
above proposal has been discussed and the following
decision has been taken:
c
"Points for consideration 1, 2 and 4 has been
approved with following amendments:-

(i) All courses shown in Annexure-"Gha" except
S.No.1,4 and 7 are approved.
D
(ii) One institution must not be allowed to start more
than 4 courses.

The implementation report may sent to this Department
within 15 days. E
Sci/-
Special Secretary (GAD) to the
Government of Hima~halj>radesh
Additional Chief Secretary (Technical Education)"
F
10. It is seen that the Cabinet considered the proposal of
the State Council for Vocational Training and after deliberation,
the decision has been taken to continue various courses under
SCVT except for the courses at SI. No. 1 (Art and Craft), SI.
No. 4 (Library Science) and SI. No. 7 (PTI). Though in the G
supplementary affidavit, the Stc¥e has not highlighted the reason
for discontinuing the three courses in the State of Himachal
Pradesh, the High Court presumed that the State is precluded
from taking fresh/revised policy in the matter of imparting
technical education. In fact, in the said decision, the State has H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 S.C.R.

A not barred all the institutions from continuing the courses already
notified under SCVT. The Cabinet decided to discontinue only
three courses. Inasmuch as the said Cabinet decision dated
18.07.2009 not being the subject-matter or issue of the writ
petition, the State was not in a position to highlight all the details
B before the Court. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the High
Court was not justified in interfering with the Cabinet decision
dated 18.07.2009 which was not the issue or challenge in the
writ petition. We are also unable to accept the conclusion of
the High Court that the petitioner's association (respondent
c herein) is entitled to run all the courses under the principle of
'legitimate expectation'.

11. The High Court has lost sight of the fact that education
is a dynamic system and courses/subjects have to keep
changing with regard to market demand, employability potential,
D availability of infrastructure, etc. No institute can have a
legitimate right or expectation to run a particular course forever
and it is the pervasive power and authority vested in the
Government to frame policy and guidelines for progressive and
legitimate growth of the society and create balances in the
E arena inclusive of imparting technical education from time to
time. Inasmuch as the institutions found fit were allowed to run
other courses except the three mentioned above, the doctrine
of legitimate expectation was not disregarded by the State.
Inasmuch as ultimately it is the responsibility of the State to
F provide good education, training and employment, it is best
suited to frame a policy or either modify/alter a decision
depending on the circumstance based on relevant and
acceptable materials. The Courts do not substitute its views in
the decision of the State Government with regard to policy
G matters. In fact, the Court must refuse to sit as appellate
authority or super legislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation
or policy decision of the Government unless it runs counter to
the mandate of the Constitution.

12. With regard to the importance of human resources,
H
STATE OF H. P. v. HIMACHAL PRADESH NIZI VYAVSAYIK 549
PRISHIKSHAN KENDRA SANGH [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
especially manpower requirement in various professional and A
technical fields, the Government is free to frame its policy, alter
or modify the same as to the needs of the society. In such
matters, the Courts cannot interfere lightly as if the Government
is unaware of the situation. Apart from these aspects,
procedurally also the High Court has committed an error in B
quashing the Cabinet decision dated 18.07.2009 which was
not challenged in the wtit petition by raising valid grounds.
Further, both parties were not afforded opportunity to put-forth
their stand as to the subsequent development, namely; Cabinet
decision dated 18.07 .2009. For all these reasons, the c
impugned order of the High Court is to be interfered with.
However, we permit the respondent's association or its
members to challenge the said decision/order of the
Government by way of fresh proceeding, if they so desire.

13. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the D
High Court quashing the Cabinet decision dated 18.07.2009
and issuing various directions including awarding cost of
Rs.25,000/- in favour of the respondent-association are set
aside. As observed earlier, the respondent's association or its
members are free to challenge the order of the Government in E
the High Court by way of an appropriate writ by projecting valid
grounds, if any. In such event, the State Government is equally
entitled to highlight its policy, need for the change, and demand
of the society insofar as courses prescribed under SCVTs.
F
14. With the above observations, the civil appeal is
allowed with no order as to costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.