Holding

The policy decision to provide additional training exclusively to Gopal Sahayaks was a valid classification founded on intelligible differentia and not arbitrary, therefore the High Court’s order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether the State’s decision to limit additional Veterinary Pharmacist training to Gopal Sahayaks violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions concerning training and employment.
Whether a policy decision made by the executive is amenable to judicial review absent capriciousness, arbitrariness, or discrimination.
Whether the State can challenge the High Court judgment after formulating a scheme under threat of contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Subjects

Article 14EqualityAdministrative lawPolicy decisionClassificationDiscriminationTraining schemeVeterinary PharmacistDairy SchemeJudicial reviewHigh CourtSupreme CourtAdministrative Tribunal

Judgment

,
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.
-~

Policy decision-Judicial interference with-Held framing of
c 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
Scheme viz. Veterinary Scheme-Training imparted to participants under these
D 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
their training and the finances requisite for rearing cattle. In 1992 State of
F 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. ~
Therefor~, with a view to ultimately absorbing these Gopal Sahayaks as
H 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 E
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) F

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
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 informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from
the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the
Constitution. [97-F, G) H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R.

A Krishnan Kakkanath v. Government ofKera/a and Ors., (1997) 9 SCC 495.

3. The Classification between the candidates under the two Schemes was
distinct and clearly defined as regards the eligibility criteria of candidates,
the choice of candidates, the training and post-training assistance and most
B importantly the objectives of such training: The distinction made between the
candidates of the two Schemes was permissible, as the classification was
founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished Gopal Sahayaks
from the Dairy farmers. The Veterinary Scheme was not concerned with any
productive activity as the Dairy Scheme was. The Gopal Sahayaks were
trained to set up practice to render basic veterinary services at the panchayat
C level. When this possibility was effectively blocked by the setting up of
dispensaries to serve the panchayats, it was not unreasonable for the
Government to consider the Gopal Sahayaks for appointment in the
dispensaries after the additional training particularly when the training as
Veterinary Pharmacists was to be a stepping-stone to employment in the
dispensaries. The appellant took the decision to train Gopal Sahayaks having
D assessed the need for Veterinary Pharmacists in the State, the special training
already undergone by the Gopal Sahayaks, and their inability in the changed
scenario to otherwise be gainfully employed as independent para-veterinary
doctors. (98-F-G; 99-A-B)

E 4. The Dairy Scheme was aimed at making the candidates dairy farmers
thereby also boosting the rural economy. It was not necessary for the
candidates under the Dairy Scheme to take up training as Veterinary
Pltarmacists to fulfil their role as dairy farmers. If the candidates of the Dairy
·Scheme had been allowed to take up training as Veterinary Pharmacists, this
might have equipped them to work in dispensaries but it would have defeated
F the very purpose of the Dairy Scheme. Besides the respondents had chosen
to avail of the benefits of the Dairy Scheme. They are, therefore, obliged to
accept the terms and conditions on which the benefit was made available
namely take up cattle rearing. In the ~ircumstances, the refusal of the
appellant to treat the respondents on par with the Gopal Sahayaks as far as
G the additional training as Veterinary Pharmacists was concerned was not
unwarranted. The respondents having failed to discharge the onus of
establishing their allegations against the appellant of hostile discrimination,
it was not for the Court to interfere with the decision taken by the appellant.
The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside. (99-B-D]

H Budhan Choudhary v. The State of Bihar, [1955) 1 SCR 1045; Shri Ram
STATE v. PADAM DEVI [RUMA PAL, J.] 93
... .,.. Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tandolkar and Ors., [1959) SCR 279 and A
• Krishan Kakkanath v. Govt. ofKera/a and Ors.. (1997) 9 SCC 495, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5858 of
1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.1999 of the Himachal High B
Court in C.W.P. No. 730 of 1998.

WITH
f
Civil Appeal No. 5859/99.

R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General and Naresh K. Sharma, for
c
the Appellants.

- V.R. Reddy, J.S. Attri and Krishna Pal Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D
RUMA PAL, J. The question to be decided in both these appeals is
~
whether the appellant could have, as a matter of policy, made available a
facility for additional training exclusively for a particular group of trainees.
The question arises in the context of two schemes formulated by the appellant
to tackle the problem of rural poverty and unemployment amongst the rural E
educated youth.

The first scheme which was formulated in 1981 (referred to as the
Dairy scheme) sought to provide for those who had tiny pieces of land in the
rural areas and who moved to urban areas in search of jobs. The State
, Government was of the view that there was a need to encourage such landed F
unemployed youths not to depend on cultivation or horticulture alone as
these only provided seasonal income but to engage in dairy farming for
which the State was both climatically and geographically well suited. ln
addition to easing the urban population, it was felt that the production of
dairy products would not only meet the growing demand but would afford a
G
steady income to the dairy farmers. ln this background, the Dairy scheme
made elaborate provisions for achieving these objects the relevant aspects of
,. which are paraphrased and summarised below:

As far as the State Government was concerned, it would impart technical
know-how to the educated unemployed and under employed, economically H

II.
94

-
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A weak, rural youths to perfect them in the skill of dairy fanning. They would .....
be trained in the rearing of calves, care of pregnant and milking animals,
raising of fodder crops, conservation of fodder, veterinary first aid and
insemination etc. On completion of the training, they would be given five
cows from the Government on book value, if available, or would be assisted
by the Government in procuring cross bred animals from the open market. As
B far as the finances were concerned, the Government would assist them in
obtaining loans from financial institutions and as support for the insemination
work they would be given insemination kits.

It is not necessary to consider the details of the financial assistance nor
c the details of the training except to note that the training curriculum was as
follows:

I. Cattle raising including first aid 10 weeks

2. Fodder raising 2 weeks
D
3. Artificial insemination 8 weeks

4. Visit to out stations 4 weeks
'"'
The only eligibility criteria was that the training would be open to
E persons permanently residing in the "milk shed areas" in villages located
within 5 to 10 kilometers radius of chilling plants or 5 kilometers radius from
collection points of the milk route. The candidates would have to possess one
hectare irrigated or two hectare un-irrigated land of which at least half an
acre would have to be set apart for growing fodder. The candidates were
required to have passed the matriculation examination and should preferably
F be about 27 years of age and physically fit to handle cattle. Ex-servicemen
were encouraged to join the scheme. On completion of the training, a candidate
was obliged to : (i) give an undertaking that he would take up cattle rearing
and that the training would not in any way entitle him to get any government
job; (ii) execute a bond to sell surplus milk to the Government run milk
G supply schemes for three years. 50% of the cost of the milk would be retained
by the candidate and 50% would be taken up by the Government to repay the
loan provided to the candidates by financial institutions.

The· Dairy scheme proved successful and is still operative in the State. ~
Between 1981 and 1996, 19 batches of candidates were trained and several
H of such trained persons have set up their owfi dairy units.
STATE v. PADAM DEVI (RUMA PAL, J.] 95

- ... A second scheme was formulated by the State Government in 1992.
The scheme was called the 'Gopal Sahayak Yojana' and is referred to hereafter
as the Veterinary Scheme. The object of the Veterinary scheme was two fold;
In the first place it sought to reach veterinary assistance to those engaged in
A

livestock breeding and farmers at their door steps. The second object was to
train Gopal Sahayaks for this purpose so that at least one self-employed
Gopal Sahayak was available in each Panchayat. The only eligibility criteria B
was that the candidate should be an unemployed male whose age should be
between 18 and 40 years; he was required to be a permanent resident of the

.. concerned Panchayat and he should be a matriculate. However, the candidates
were subjected to a selection by a Selection Committee consisting of the Sub
Divisional Officer, the Block Development Officer, and the concerned District
Animal Husbandry Officer/Senior Veterinary Officer. Preference was given
c
to candidates belonging to remote panchayats and 'antodaya families',
scheduled castes/scheduled tribes/backward classes and to families living below
~"
the poverty line. The training covering various aspects of the treatment and
breeding of livestock was for six months. Duri.ng the period of the training
the Gopal Sahayaks were to be attached with particular veterinary hospitals D
or dispensaries. After the training a Gopal Sahayak was required to work
under the guidance of the Veterinary Officer of the panchayat. He would be
~
paid an honorarium of Rs. 350/- for 12 months by the Animal Husbandry
• Department and would be given a kit of veterinary medicines as well as an
artificial insemination equipment, the purchase of which was to be substantially E
subsidised by the State Government. Ultimately, however, a Gopal Sahayak
was to be self-employed and would be entitled to charge a prescribed fee for
performing artificial insemination, giving veterinary first aid, castration,
< vaccination, dipping and drenching. The Veterinary Scheme was formally
abandoned after the first year of its operation in March 1994 during which
period 383 Gopal Sahayaks were trained. F

Between the years 1993 to 1998, 808 Veterinary dispensaries were
opened by the State Government with one dispensary to every two panchayats.
A notification was issued by the State Government on 19th December 1994
promulgating regulations for selecting candidates to undergo training as
veterinary pharmacists. According to the appellant, since there was in the
G
circumstances no scope for self employment of the Gopal Sahayaks, a decision
~
was taken in 1998 by the State Government for training the Gopal Sahayaks
t as Veterinary Pharmacists. The written test which had been held in 1997-98
for selecting Veterinary Pharmacists was accordingly scrapped and the Gopal

- Sahayaks were given the opportunity of availing of this additional training as H
-
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

.A Veterinary Pharmacists by condensing the two year training period into a 9-
months training course. The object of this exercise was to ultimately absorb
...
these Gopal Sahayaks as Veterinary Pharmacists against 700 posts lying vacant
in the State Government at that time. Those candidates who had been imparted
training under the Dairy Scheme submitted representations to the State
Government for being considered for the Veterinary Pharmacists' training
B course. Their request was rejected by the State Government.

The Dairy Scheme trainees then filed two writ petitions under Article
226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Himachal Pradesh challenging ~
the Government's decision not to extend the benefit of the nine months ;...
c condensed training course to persons other than Gopal Sahayaks and claiming ~
a right to be considered along with Gopal Sahayaks for training as veterinary :--
pharmacists. The basis of the challenge in the writ petitions was Article 14
of the Constitution. It was urged by the writ petitioners that the Dairy scheme
-~
and the Veterinary scheme were both aimed at generating self-employment--
and that the training undergone by the candidates under the Dairy scheme
D was in fact wider than that undergone by the Veterinary Scheme. The State
Government contested the writ applications. It was contended that the High
Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter on the ground that t:
~
the case related to employment under the State and was within the purview
-+-
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The second contention raised by ..._

E the appellant was that the High Court should not interfere in its policy decision
which could not be termed to be arbitrary or discriminatory as the candidates
under the two schemes formed distinct classes.

The High Court negatived both the contentions of the State and by a 1_-
common judgment allowed both writ petitions. It was held that the issue
F raised in the writ petitions did not relate to a question of employment but to '(

the issue of training and as such the High Court had the jurisdiction to
judicially review the decision of the State Government.. On the merits, the
High Court was of the view that no rational distinction could be drawn
between the candidates who had completed training under the Dairy scheme
G and the Veterinary Scheme and that the State Government should have
considered all the persons trained under both schemes for veterinary
pharmacists training. The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of with a ,r'
direction to the State Government to consider the claim of the trainees under
the Dairy Scheme alongwith Gopal Sahayaks for training as veterinary -i
pharmacists. In the alternative, the State was directed to formulate a scheme
H for training the Dairy Scheme trainees as veterinary pharmacists. ...
STATEv. PADAMDEV! [RUMA PAL,J.) 97
...
The State Government has impugned the decision of the High Court A
before us. The respondents who were the writ petitioners in the High Court

- have sought ro uphold the decision of the High Court not only on the basis
of its reasoning but also on the ground that subsequent to the High Court's
decision, the State Government had, in compliance with the High Court's
decision, formulated an identical scheme on 16. 4. 1999 in respect of persons
covered by the dairy scheme. It is contended that the appellant cannot now B
reopen the issue before us.
+
The second objection is in the nature of a demurrer and is considered
at the outset. We are of the view the objection is untenable. According to the
appellant, the scheme dated 16.4.1999 had been prepared under threat of
c
' contempt pr9ceedings initiated by the respondents before the High Court on
11.3.1999:/This appears to be correct. Although special leave petitions had
been filed against the impugned judgment on 6.4.1999, the matters were
listed before this Court for the first time on 5.5.1999 when this Court directed
issuance of notice to both sets of respondents. The scheme was prepared in
the interregnum. On 28.5.1999 the High Court dropped the contempt D
proceedings against the State Government. A second contempt proceeding
~
. was filed by the respondents before the High Court on 16.9.1999. On
4.10.1999, this Court granted leave in the special leave petitions filed and
stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court. In these circumstances,
the mere formulation of the scheme on 16.4.1999 cannot debar the appellant
from questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment.
E

We are also of the view that the judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained on the merits. The decision to make a special concession for Gopal
Sahayaks in the matter of additional training as Veterinary Pharmacists was
• admittedly a policy decision. The framing of administrative policy is within F
-j 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 riot informed by any reason whatsoever or it
suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions
of the Constitution". 1
G
The appellant has given reasons why it made special provisions for the
>- Gopal Sahayaks, reasons which in our view cannot be termed to be irrational
or arbitrary. The Dairy Scheme was for small landholders, who came and
continue to come from villages in the milk shed areas. The object of the
I. Krishnan Kakkanath v. Government of Kera/a and Ors.. (1997] 9 SCC 495, p.36. H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] 3 S.C.R. .,
~

A Dairy Scheme was not only to provide a steady source of income for such
small land holders but also to develop the production of dairy products. All
applicants under the scheme fulfilling the requisite criteria were allowed to
participate. There was no process of selection. The training was given and the
facilities were afforded to the candidates under the Dairy Scheme with both
these objects in view. The emphasis in the training was in cattle rearing and
-
B fodder raising for such purpose. The course on the treatment of animals was
limited and subsidiary to this main object. The governmental assistance to
candidates under the Dairy Scheme was directed towards helping them set up ~
dairy farms by providing them cattle after completion of their training and
the finances requisite for rearing cattle. The candidates had also given
c undertakings to take up cattle rearing.
'
The candidates under the Veterinary Scheme on the other hand were "
not land holders but had to be permanent residents of the panchayat where ·"
they would ultimately serve. The applicants had to be selected by a Committee
set up under the Scheme. The object of training Gopal Sahayaks under the
D Veterinary Scheme was to equip the candidates to prepare them to practice
basic veterinary medicine at the panchayat level. The assistance to Gopal
..
Sahayaks after completion of the training was limited to a period of service· ~

of 12 months with Veterinary Officer at an honorarium of Rs. 350 and kits
of veterinary medicines and for artificial insemination.
E The classification between the candidates under the two schemes was
therefore distinct and clearly· defined as regards the eligibility criteria of
candidates, the choice of candidates, the training and post training assistance
and most importantly the objectives of such training. The distinction made
between the candidates of the two Schemes was permissible according to the
'!'
F principles enumerated by this Court2 as the classification was founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguished Gopal Sahayaks from the Dairy
farmers. The further question remains did this differentia have a rational I
).
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the policy decision? The
Veterinary Scheme was not concerned with any productive activity as the ~
,.__
Dairy Scheme was. The Gopal Sahayaks were trained to set up practice to
G render basic veterinary services at the panchayat level. When this possibility ~
was effectively blocked by the setting up of dispensaries to serve the
panchayats, it was not· unreasonable for the Government to consider the ~
Gopa\ Sahayaks for appointment in the dispensaries ~fter the additional training

I. Budhan Choudharyv. The State of Bihar, [1955) l SCR 1045; See also Shri Ram Krishna
H Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tandolkar and Ors., [1959) SCR 279.
STATEv. PADAMDEVI [RUMAPAL,J.] 99
particularly when the training as Veterinary Pharmacists was to be a stepping- A
stone to employment in the dispensaries. The appellant took the decision to
train Gopal Sahayaks having assessed the need for Veterinary Pharmacists in
the State, the special training already undergone by the Gopal Sahayaks, and
their inability in the changed scenario to otherwise be gainfully employed as
independent para-veterinary doctors. As we have already noted the Dairy
Scheme was aimed at making the candidates dairy farmers thereby also B
boosting the rural economy. It was not necessary for the candidates under the
Dairy Scheme to take up training as Veterinary Pharmacists to fulfil their role
as dairy farmers. If the candidates of the Dairy Scheme had been allowed to
take up training as Veterinary Pharmacists, this might have equipped them to
work in Dispensaries but it would have defeated the very purpose of the C
Dairy Scheme. Besides, the respondents had chosen to avail of the benefits
of the Dairy Scheme. They are, therefore, obliged to accept the terms and
conditions on which the benefit was made available namely take up cattle
rearing.' In the circumstances, the refusal of the appellant to treat the
respondents on par with the Gopal Sahayaks as far as the additional training
as Veterinary Pharmacists was concerned was not unwarranted. The D
· respondents having failed to discharge the onus of establishing their allegations
against the appeliant of hostile discrimination, it was not for the Court to
interfere with the decision taken by the appellant. The decision of the High
Court is accordingly set aside and the appeals allowed without any order as
to costs. E
T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

3. Krishnan Kakkanath v. Government of Kerala and Ors., (1997] 9 SCC 495.