1986 JTR(SC) 340
1987 AIR(SC) 135 ; 1986 2 CurCC(SC) 926 ; 1986 JT 516 ; 1986 1 JT 516 ; 1986 2 Scale 481 ; 1986 4 SCC 361 ; 1986 KHC 687
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 1985, D/-22-9-1986.
Vidarbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh, Appellant
versus
State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents.
(A) The appeal pertains to a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, challenging the dismissal of its writ petition against the Government of Maharashtra's May 31, 1985 order that refused permission for member institutions to hold first year Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) classes in 1985-86. While the Government had initially invited applications for conducting D.Ed. on a 'no grant basis' for the academic year 1984-85 and granted permission to numerous institutions, a subsequent policy decision curtailed admissions to prevent large-scale unemployment, as the estimated demand was far lower than the potential intake of 3,000 students against a requirement of only 616. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition is thus reviewed under the principles governing administrative discretion, right to education, and the doctrine of reasonableness, without any explicit invocation of specific statutory provisions under the Societies Registration Act or other enabling laws.
(B) The core legal principles include the doctrine of administrative reasonableness, the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14, the permissible scope of policy decisions in educational regulation, and the balance between individual right to education and public interest in preventing unemployment. The case underscores that an authority's decision based on socio-economic ground, such as avoiding large-scale unemployment, can be valid if it is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.
Facts of the case:
The Government of Maharashtra invited applications for conducting D.Ed. classes on a 'no grant basis' for the academic year 1984-85, granting permission to 47 institutions in Nagpur District and 17 in Bhandara District. Later, a policy decision was taken to restrict admissions to avoid large-scale unemployment, leading to an order permitting only 11 institutions to hold first year classes in 1985-86 while 36 similarly situated institutions were denied permission. The appellant challenged this denial as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the Government's decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable, given the disproportionate number of institutions relative to the estimated need of 616 first-year students, which would have resulted in large-scale unemployment. The selection of the 11 institutions was based on need-cum-performance, and there was no violation of Article 14 or the right to education.
Issues:
Whether the Government's policy decision to restrict first year D.Ed. admissions to 11 institutions was arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and whether it violated the right to education of the affected candidates.
Ratio Decidendi:
The decision to limit admissions to a number aligned with the estimated employment capacity of the district is a valid exercise of administrative policy, aimed at preventing large-scale unemployment and is not arbitrary or unreasonable within the principles of Article 14, especially when the selection among similarly situated institutions is based on objective criteria of need and performance.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the writ petitions and related appeals are all dismissed.
(A) The appeal pertains to a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, challenging the dismissal of its writ petition against the Government of Maharashtra's May 31, 1985 order that refused permission for member institutions to hold first year Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) classes in 1985-86. While the Government had initially invited applications for conducting D.Ed. on a 'no grant basis' for the academic year 1984-85 and granted permission to numerous institutions, a subsequent policy decision curtailed admissions to prevent large-scale unemployment, as the estimated demand was far lower than the potential intake of 3,000 students against a requirement of only 616. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition is thus reviewed under the principles governing administrative discretion, right to education, and the doctrine of reasonableness, without any explicit invocation of specific statutory provisions under the Societies Registration Act or other enabling laws.
(B) The core legal principles include the doctrine of administrative reasonableness, the principle of non-arbitrariness under Article 14, the permissible scope of policy decisions in educational regulation, and the balance between individual right to education and public interest in preventing unemployment. The case underscores that an authority's decision based on socio-economic ground, such as avoiding large-scale unemployment, can be valid if it is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.
Facts of the case:
The Government of Maharashtra invited applications for conducting D.Ed. classes on a 'no grant basis' for the academic year 1984-85, granting permission to 47 institutions in Nagpur District and 17 in Bhandara District. Later, a policy decision was taken to restrict admissions to avoid large-scale unemployment, leading to an order permitting only 11 institutions to hold first year classes in 1985-86 while 36 similarly situated institutions were denied permission. The appellant challenged this denial as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the Government's decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable, given the disproportionate number of institutions relative to the estimated need of 616 first-year students, which would have resulted in large-scale unemployment. The selection of the 11 institutions was based on need-cum-performance, and there was no violation of Article 14 or the right to education.
Issues:
Whether the Government's policy decision to restrict first year D.Ed. admissions to 11 institutions was arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and whether it violated the right to education of the affected candidates.
Ratio Decidendi:
The decision to limit admissions to a number aligned with the estimated employment capacity of the district is a valid exercise of administrative policy, aimed at preventing large-scale unemployment and is not arbitrary or unreasonable within the principles of Article 14, especially when the selection among similarly situated institutions is based on objective criteria of need and performance.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the writ petitions and related appeals are all dismissed.
A.S.BHASME, N.M.GHATATE
Judgement
DUTT J.:- This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, assailing the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the Government of Maharashtra dated May 31, 1985 refusing to grant permission to the member institutions of the appellant to hold the first year classes in Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) in the academic year 1985-86.
2. Considering that in course of time there would be acute need of trained primary teachers, the Government of Maharashtra invited applications from educational institutions for conducting D.Ed. course classes on "no grant basis" in the academic year 1984-85. A large number of applications were received by the Government from different institutions of the districts of the State. It appears that by an order dated September 9, 1984 of the Education and Employment Department of the Maharashtra Government, permission was granted to 47 institutions in Nagpur District and to 17 institutions in Bhandara District. These 47 institutions of the Nagpur District are members of the appellant-Society. The permission was granted on certain conditions and it was made clear that the order granting permission would be applicable only for the academic year 1984-85. The Director of Education, State of Maharashtra, by his letter dated May 21, 1985 instructed the institutions that they should be prepared to admit students for the academic year 1985-86 and also prepare a programme for facilitating admission. It is the case of the appellant that while the institutions had been going on with the preparation for admission of students for the next academic year, the members of the appellant-Society received an order from the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, dated June 14, 1985, that the Government had not granted permission to 36 member institutions of the appellant-Society to hold first year classes for the year 1985-86 except that they would be entitled to hold the second year classes. In other words, as per the said order these 36 institutions have been directed not to admit students in the academic year 1985-86. This order was made by the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur, pursuant to the policy decision of the Government dated May 31, 1985.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant moved the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the propriety and validity of the same. The High Court, as stated already, dismissed the writ petition and hence this appeal by special leave.
4. Mr. Lalit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and unreasonable and interferes with the right to education of citizens.
5. In order to consider the said contention of the appellant it is necessary to refer to the case of the respondents. In the counteraffidavit of the respondents affirmed by Mr. H. P. Horker, Education Officer, Z.P., Nagpur and filed in the High Court, it has been stated that in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts, a large number of applicants applied for starting new D.Ed. colleges from time to time during the year 1984-85. 47 new applicants have been granted permission to start new D. Ed. colleges in Nagpur District and 17 new applicants were granted permission to start new D.Ed. colleges in Bhandara District during the year 1984-85. In addition to this, 5 new D.Ed. colleges in Nagpur District and 10 D.Ed. colleges in Bhandara Distrct were started unauthorisedly in 1984-85. A scrutiny of a large number of colleges pre-existing up to 1984 and the new D.Ed. colleges started during 1984-85, discloses that the number of new D. Ed. colleges started in all the districts except Nagpur and Bhandara Districts, is approximately equal to the additional need of the districts, while the number of the new D.Ed. colleges started in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts is proportionately. much larger, about five times more than the estimated increased need of the two districts. Further, it is stated that it is not desirable and feasible to permit all the 47 D. Ed. colleges to hold first year classes during the year 1985-86. The total capacity of these 47 colleges with 73 divisions, namely, about 3,000 students far exceeds the requirement of only 616 students in the first year classes every year. To permit admission of 3,000 students every year will result in a serious consequence of a large scale unemployment. It is pointed out in the affidavit that the maximum age of eligibility of a primary school teacher is 28 years. After completion of 28 years of age, a D.Ed. trained teacher, if unemployed, can never join the service of a primary teacher. Accordingly, it is submitted that it is all the more necessary to plan the opening of the D.Ed. colleges in such a manner that it will not result in large scale unmanageable unemployment among the D. Ed. candidates. It is also pointed out that the whole of their training for two years will go to waste in the event they are not employed after completing the age of 28 years.
6. In view of the averments in the affidavit of the respondents, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the impugned order or the policy decision of the Government is arbitrary and unreasonable. There is also no question of interference with the right to education of any citizen, as contended on behalf of the appellant. On the contrary, the Government," in our opinion, has taken the right decision so as to save the youngmen from being exploited. There is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the refusal to grant permission to hold D.Ed. classes for the year 1985-86 will result in unemployment. As pointed out in the affidavit of the respondents, if the permission is granted, there will be a large scale unemployment inasmuch as 3,000 students will be admitted in the first year classes as against the requirement of 616 students.
7. It is complained on behalf of the appellant that by granting permission to the 11 institutions to hold first year classes in the academic year 1985-86, the respondents have made a discrimination between the said 11 institutions and the remaining 36 institutions, who are similarly situated, without any reasonable basis there for. This argument is not available to the appellant. In the first place, the appellant did not make the said 11 institutions parties in the writ petition in the High Court nor in the appeal before us. We agree with the High Court that these 11 institutions have been selected on the basis of need-cum-performance and, accordingly, there is no question of any discrimination or of violation of the provision of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The contentions of the appellants are rejected.
8. No other point has been urged in this appeal. The appeal being Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 1985 is dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs.
9. The disposal of Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 1985 results in the disposal of Writ Petitions Nos. 11258-62, 12285, 12070, 12078, 12079, 12132 of 1985, Civil Appeals Nos. 5444-46 and Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 12446, 12465-66 of 1985, as they involve the same facts and points. Accordingly, these Civil Appeals, Writ Petitions and Special Leave Petitions are all dismissed without any order as to costs.
Appeals dismissed.