REPORTABLE                           

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   3385        OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23998 of 2009)

State of H.P. & Ors.                                      .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyavsayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh        .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2)  This appeal is directed against the final judgment and  

order dated 12.08.2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal  

Pradesh at Shimla in C.W.P. No. 2948 of 2008 wherein the  

Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed  

by the respondent herein.

1

3) Brief facts:

(a) In  pursuance  of  the  recommendation  of  the  All  India  

Council for Technical Education (AICTE), the Government of  

India  appointed  a  Committee  called  the  National  Trade  

Certification  Investigation  Committee  in  the  year  1951 with  

instructions to prepare a scheme for the establishment of an  

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  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  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  

2

Training  (NCVT)  was  set  up  in  the  year  1956  and  was  

entrusted  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  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  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  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  

3

infrastructural facilities for the establishment of technical and  

other professional institutions in the State.   In order to fulfill  

this  objective,  the  State  Government  framed  Technical  

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  

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-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 Instructor, Library Science etc.

4

(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 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.  

(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  

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  

affiliation,  permission  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  

5

Secretary.   Accordingly,  the Sub-Committee  was constituted  

on  25.10.2008.   On  22.11.2008,  the  Sub-Committee,  so  

constituted, submitted its report to the Government and the  

matter  was  taken  up  in  the  Cabinet  meeting  held  on  

25.11.2008.  The effect of the decision of the Cabinet was that  

for  the  academic  session  2007-08  there  would  be  no  

admission  for  the  courses  which  are  being  taught  by  the  

respondent  herein  and subsequent  to  the  Cabinet  decision,  

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  

(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  

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, the High Court, by the impugned  

6

order,  allowed  the  writ  petition  and  quashed  subsequent  

cabinet  decision  dated  18.07.2009  discontinuing  the  three  

courses, namely, Sl. No. 1 (Art and Craft), Sl. No. 4 (Library  

Science) and Sl. 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.

4) Heard Mr.  Altaf  Ahmed, learned senior  counsel  for the  

appellant-State  and  Mr.  Anoop  Chaudhary,  learned  senior  

counsel for the respondent.   

5) Mr.  Altaf  Ahmed,  learned senior  counsel  appearing for  

the State, after taking us through the relief prayed for in the  

writ petition and the stand of the State submitted that after  

hearing  arguments  and  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 same when the  

writ petitioner has not pleaded or amended the original prayer  

in  the  writ  petition.   He  also  pointed  out  that  without  

appreciating the stand of the State in modifying the “policy”,  

7

the High Court not only quashed the Cabinet decision but also  

issued various directions which are all unacceptable.  On the  

other hand, Mr. Anoop Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for  

the respondent submitted that on the principle of ‘legitimate  

expectation’, the State is not justified in altering the policy to  

promote private institutions for vocational training on various  

subjects.

6) Admittedly,  the  respondent  herein  which  is  an  

unregistered association of Vocational Training Centres (VTCs)  

filed writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh  

at  Shimla  through  its  President  seeking  certain  reliefs.  

According to the  respondent-Association,  their  members are  

imparting training in different Vocational Training Centres and  

are also recognized by the Himachal Pradesh SCVT.  In order  

to  appreciate  the  rival  contentions,  it  is  useful  to  refer  the  

relief prayed for in the writ petition which reads as under:-

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may be  allowed, - (i) the  respondents  may  be  directed  by  issuing  writ  of  

mandamus  to  hold  admission  test  for  admitting  students in SCVT Courses for the session 2007-08 and  consequently sponsor the candidates to the Vocational  Training Centres (VTCs) approved by the respondents  for SCVT Courses;

8

(ii) that in case it is felt by the respondents that there are  certain  other  formalities  which  are  required  to  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  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  (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  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;

(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  

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  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  

9

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,  a G.O. was issued on 19.12.2008.  It  is seen  

from the impugned order of the High Court that while hearing  

the  matter,  the  Division  Bench,  on  28.05.2009,  directed  

learned Addl. 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 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, 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 up of the institutions and  

further that the members of the petitioner’s association cannot  

10

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  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  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 Addl. Advocate General,  

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.   

11

8) We have already adverted to the relief prayed for by the  

respondent-association in the said writ petition.  Admittedly,  

there is no prayer for quashing of even earlier Cabinet decision  

or order of the government.  The conclusion of the High Court  

quashing  the  Cabinet  decision  dated  18.07.2009  and  as  a  

consequence  issuing  several  directions  is  unacceptable  and  

contrary to the well established principles.  First of all, there  

was  no  prayer  for  quashing  of  any  decision  of  the  State  

Government much less the subsequent Cabinet decision dated  

18.07.2009.  If the High Court was interested in going into the  

said  decision  that  too  after  reserving  the  judgment  on  

03.07.2009, it is but appropriate to reopen the case, permit  

the petitioner’s association to amend the relief portion, afford  

adequate opportunity to the State to put-forth their stand for  

modifying this “policy” curtailing certain 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  are  

impermissible.   

12

9) As rightly pointed out by Mr. Altaf Ahmed, without any  

arguments  having  been  heard,  without  there  being  any  

question raised by any party as to the validity of 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  generally  ought  not  to  be  interfered  with  in  

judicial review so lightly as has been done in the present case.  

The quashing 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 especially  

in such vital areas like imparting technical education is not  

acceptable.   The  following  is  the  outcome  of  the  Cabinet  

decision dated 18.07.2009:

“Dated: 18.07.2009

ITEM NO.37

Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of General Administration

(Confidential & Cabinet)

Subject:- Regarding State Council for vocational Training

13

In  the  meeting  of  Cabinet  held  on  18.07.2009,  the  above  proposal  has  been  discussed  and  the  following  decision has been taken:

“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.

(ii) One institution must not be allowed to start more than  4 courses.

The  implementation  report  may  sent  to  this  Department  within 15 days.

Sd/- Special Secretary (GAD) to the

Government of Himachal Pradesh

Additional Chief Secretary (Technical Education)”

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 Sl. No. 1 (Art and Craft), Sl. No.  

4  (Library  Science)  and  Sl.  No.  7  (PTI).   Though  in  the  

supplementary  affidavit,  the  State  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,  

14

the State has 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  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  

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, 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  

15

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 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 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 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,  

especially manpower requirement in various professional and  

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  

16

Government  is  unaware  of  the  situation.   Apart  from these  

aspects, procedurally also the High Court has committed an  

error  in  quashing  the  Cabinet  decision  dated  18.07.2009  

which was not challenged in the writ 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  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  

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  

the High Court  by way of  an appropriate  writ  by projecting  

valid grounds, if any.  In such event, the State Government is  

17

equally  entitled to highlight  its  policy,  need for  the  change,  

and demand of the society insofar as courses prescribed under  

SCVTs.   

14) With the above observations, the civil appeal is allowed  

with no order as to costs.        

                  .…....…………………… ……………J.                                 

  (P. SATHASIVAM)  

                         .…....…………………………………J.    (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)  

NEW DELHI; APRIL 20, 2011.             

18