Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 294 (HP)

KASHMIR SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2003-09-23

K.C.SOOD

body2003
JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J. (Oral) - This judgment will dispose of these two writ petitions, as common questions of law and fact are involved. 2. The Government of H.P. in the year 1981 formulated a Scheme (Dairy Scheme for short) with an object to impart training to unemployed rural youth who move to urban areas for jobs. The object was to encourage the youth to engage themselves in dairy farming for which this State is climatically and geographically suited. The Government was prompted by the growing demand for dairy products. This rearing cattle, Government took a view, would provide steady income to the dairy farmers. The State Government, under the Scheme, is to impart training to educated unemployed, economically weak, rural youth to perfect them in Dairy farming. After training they are to rear calven, take care of milking animals, raise fodder crops. The training includes veterinary first aid and insemination etc. On completion of the training they are to be given cows from the Government on book value, if available or the Government is to assist in procuring cross-bread animals from the open market. The Government, under the Scheme, would also help them in obtaining loan from financial institutions etc. The eligibility criteria for such training is that person must be a permanent resident in "milk shed areas" in villages located within 5 to 10 kilometer radius of chilling plants or 5 kilometer radius from collection points of the milk route. The candidates have to possess one hectare irrigated or two hectares un-irrigated land of which at least half an acre is to set apart for growing fodder. The candidates should be at least matriculate of about 27 years of age, physically fit to handle cattle. On completion of training, the candidate is to give an undertaking: (a) That he would take up the cattle rearing and that the training would not in any way entitle him to-get any Government job; (b) To execute a bond to sell surplus milk to the Government run milk supply schemes for three years. 50% of the cost of milk is to be retained by he candidate and 50% to be taken by the Government to repay the loan provided to the candidates by financial institutions. 3. The Dairy Scheme is still in operation. In the year 1992 another scheme known as "Gopal Sahayak Yojna" was formulated by the Government. 50% of the cost of milk is to be retained by he candidate and 50% to be taken by the Government to repay the loan provided to the candidates by financial institutions. 3. The Dairy Scheme is still in operation. In the year 1992 another scheme known as "Gopal Sahayak Yojna" was formulated by the Government. The object of Gram Sahayak Yojna is two folds: (a) To provide veterinary assistance .to those engaged in livestock breeding and farmers at their doorsteps. (b) To train Gopal Sahayak for this purpose so that at least one self-employed Gopal Sahayak is available in each Panchayat. 4. The eligibility criteria under this Scheme were that the candidate should be an unemployed male with age between 18 and 40 years. The candidate is required to be a permanent resident of the Panchayat concerned and should be at least matriculate. The candidates are subjected to a selection by a Selection Committee consisting of various officers at District level. Under the Scheme, preference is given to remote panchayats and antodaya families", Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, backward classes and to the families living below the poverty line. The training covers various aspects of the treatment and breeding of livestock. This training is to be given for six months. During this training the Gopal Sahayak are attached with particular veterinary hospitals. After training, a Gopal Sahayak is to work under the guidance of a Veterinary officer of the Panchayat. He is to be paid as honorarium of Rs. 350 for 12 months by the Animal Husbandry Department. The scheme envisages that a Gopal Sahayak is to be self employed. He is entitled to charge prescribed fee for performing artificial insemination, providing veterinary first aid, castration, vaccination, dipping and renching. This scheme was abandoned in the year, 1994. 5. It transpires, between 1993 and 1998, 808 veterinary dispensaries were opened by the State Government i.e. one dispensary to every two Panchayats. In December, 1994 regulations were framed for selecting candidates to undergo training as Veterinary Pharmacists. 6. In 1998, a policy decision was taken by the State Government for training the Gopal Sahayak as Veterinary Pharmacists. The Gopal Sahayak were given an opportunity to undergo this training as Veterinary Pharmacists by a condense course of nine months. This was done with an object to absorb Gopal Sahayak as Veterinary Pharmacists against 700 vacant posts in the State. 7. The Gopal Sahayak were given an opportunity to undergo this training as Veterinary Pharmacists by a condense course of nine months. This was done with an object to absorb Gopal Sahayak as Veterinary Pharmacists against 700 vacant posts in the State. 7. The candidates who are imparted training under the "Dairy Scheme" represented to the State Government for being considered for the Veterinary Pharmacists training course. The representations did not find favour with the State Government. 8. The Dairy Scheme trainees filed two writ petitions, Sher Singh and others v. State of H.P., CWP No. 664 of 1998 and Padam Dev and others v. State of H.P. and another, CWP No. 730 of 1998 under Article 226 of the Constitution, before this Court challenging the Governments decision not to extend the benefit of "nine months condensed training course" to Dairy Scheme trainees. The Dairy Scheme trainees claimed their right to be considered at par with Gopal Sahayaks for the purpose of appointment as Veterinary Pharmacists. It was the case of Dairy Scheme Trainees that Dairy Scheme and the Veterinary Scheme were aimed at generating self employment and the training undergone by the candidates under the Dairy Scheme was much wider than that undergone by the Veterinary Scheme. 9. The State Government opposed the writ petitions. The contention of the State was that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petitions as the matter raised in these petitions related to employment under the State and was within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. The other contention raised by the State that the High Court should not interfere in a policy decision which was neither arbitrary or discriminatory as the candidates under the two schemes formed distinct classes. 10. The contentions raised by the State did not find favour with this Court in these writ petitions (CWPs No. 664 and 730 of 1998). This court took a view that the question raised in the writ petitions did not relate to the question of employment, but to the imparting of training and therefore, the High Court had the jurisdiction to judicially review the decision of the State Government. This court took a view that the question raised in the writ petitions did not relate to the question of employment, but to the imparting of training and therefore, the High Court had the jurisdiction to judicially review the decision of the State Government. This Court also held that there was no rational distinction between the candidates who had completed training under the Dairy Scheme and the Veterinary Scheme and the State Government was obliged to consider the persons trained in both the Schemes at par the State Government was directed to consider the claim of the "Dairy Scheme trainees" along with Gopal Sahayaks for training as Veterinary Pharmacists. In the alternative the State was directed to formulate a Scheme for training the Dairy Scheme Trainees as Veterinary Pharmacists. ~ -: : 11. Based on the decision of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, the present petitioners have laid these two petitions with the same challenge. The petitioners in both the petitions are "Dairy Scheme trainees" and pray for a direction to the respondent-State to consider the claim of the petitioners and other similarly situate persons who have been trained in 1981 along with Gopal Sahayaks for training as Veterinary Pharmacists. 12. During the course of hearing it was brought to the notice of this Court that the State challenged judgment of this court passed in Sher Singh and others v. State of H.P., CWP No. 664 of 1998 and Padam Dev and others v. State of H.P. and another, CWP No. 730 of 1998 before the Apex Court in Civil Appeals No. 5858 and 5859 of 1999. The Apex Court in State of H.P. and another v. Padam Dev and others, 2002(4) SCC 510 set aside the judgment of this Court and held that the classification between the candidates under the two Schemes was distinct and clearly defined so far the eligibility criteria of the candidates, the choice of the candidates, the training and post training assistance and objectives of such training were concerned. The distinction made by the State, observed their Lordships, was real and permissible. The classification was based on an intelligible differentia which distinguished Gopal Sahayaks from the Dairy Scheme Trainees. The distinction made by the State, observed their Lordships, was real and permissible. The classification was based on an intelligible differentia which distinguished Gopal Sahayaks from the Dairy Scheme Trainees. It was observed that Veterinary Scheme was not concerned with any productive activity, whereas Gopal Sahayaks Jojana envisaged training to Gopal Sahayaks to enable them to set up practice to render basic veterinary services at the Panchayats level: Their Lordships observed:- "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 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 paraveterinary doctors." Their Lordships further observed: "The refusal of the appellant to treat the respondents on a par with the Gopal Sahayaks as far as the additional training, as Veterinary Pharmacists was concerned was not unwarranted." 13. The Apex Court observed that there was no hostile discrimination to "Dairy Scheme Trainees" and it was not permissible for the court to interfere with the policy matter. 14. The question raised in these two writ petitions are fully covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Padam Dev (supra). 15. There is no merit in these petitions. Dismissed.