JUDGMENT Per Rajiv Sharma, J.-The present petition has been filed by the association of the Vocational Training Centres (VTCs) through its President. The necessary resolution was passed by the association authorizing the President to file the present petition on 19.11.2008. The petitioner’s association is seeking direction to the respondents to hold admission test for admitting the students in State Council for Vocational Training courses for the session 2007-08 and also to consequently sponsor the candidates to the Vocational Centres approved by the State Council for Vocational Training. 2. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that once the institutions represented by the petitioner’s association have been permitted to run the vocational courses, the State Government is estopped from changing the rules in the middle of the game. In other words, his submission is that once the members of the petitioner’s association have spent huge amount for opening the vocational centres as per the norms prescribed by the State Government, it is incumbent upon the State to hold admission test and thereafter sponsor the candidates to the members of the petitioners institution. He then argued that the committees constituted by the State Government have already inspected the premises of the members of the petitioner’s association and had recommended various courses, including Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor, Library Science and Ayurveda Pharmacist, on the basis of the infrastructure and wherewithal,. He lastly contended that the action of the State Government not to permit the members of the petitioner’s association in Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor, Ayurveda Pharmacist and Library Science is arbitrary. 3. Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr.P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General have supported the various decisions of the State Government on the ground that it is the duty cast upon the State Government to ensure quality education. 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. The Government of India has appointed a committee called ‘the National Trade Certificate Notification Committee’ on the basis of the recommendations of the All India Council for Technical Education in the year 1951. The recommendations made by the committee were accepted by the Central Government. The Central Government in consultation with the State Government constituted a body called “National Council for Vocational Training” (NCVT) in the year 1956. The recommendations made by the committee were accepted by the Central Government. The Central Government in consultation with the State Government constituted a body called “National Council for Vocational Training” (NCVT) in the year 1956. The National Council for Vocation Training has to discharge the following functions: 1. “establish and award National Trade Certificates in engineering, building, textile and leather trades and such other trades as may be brought within its scope by the Government of India; 2. prescribe standards in respect of syallabi, equipment, and scale of accommodation, duration of courses and methods of training; 3. arrange trade tests in various trade courses and lay down standards of proficiency required for a pass in the examination leading to the award of National Trade Certificate; 4. arrange for ad hoc or periodical inspections of training institutions in the country to ensure that the standards prescribed by the council are being followed; 5. recognize training institutions run by government or by private agencies for purposes of the grant of National Trade Certificates and lay down conditions for such recognition; 6. co-opt, if necessary, any person or persons to advise the council in connection with its work; 7. prescribe qualification for the technical staff of training institutions; 8. prescribe the standards and conditions of eligibility for the award of National Trade Certificates; 9. generallycontrol the conditions for the award of National Trade Certificates; 10. recommend the provision of additional training facilities wherever necessary and render such assistance in the setting up of additional training institutions or in the organization of additional training programmes as may be possible; 11.advise the Central government regarding distribution to State Governments of the contribution of the Government of India towards expenditure on the Craftsmen Training Scheme; 12. perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Government of India; 13. perform such functions as are assigned by or under the Apprentices Act, 1961.” 6. The State Government has also constituted State Council called“State Council for Vocational Training”. The State Council for Vocational Training has to discharge the following functions: 1. “to carry out the policy of the National Council with regard to the award of National Trade Certificates in engineering and non-engineering trades as may be brought within its scope by the Central or State government; 2. The State Council for Vocational Training has to discharge the following functions: 1. “to carry out the policy of the National Council with regard to the award of National Trade Certificates in engineering and non-engineering trades as may be brought within its scope by the Central or State government; 2. to implement the decision and carry out the policy laid down by the National Council in respect of syllabi, equipment, scale of accommodation, duration of courses and method of training; 3. to establish State Board of Examination in Vocational trades; 4. to arrange for ad hoc or periodical inspection of the training institutes/centres in the State and ensure that the standards prescribed by the National Council are being followed; 5. to co-opt, if necessary, any person or persons to advise the State Council in connection with its work; 6. to ensure that the staff is employed according to the qualifications prescribed by the National Council and relax qualifications in special circumstances to be recorded, for trades where such staff is not easily available; 7. to ensure that the examinations are conducted by the State Board of Examinations according to standards and the manner prescribed by the National Council; 8. to counter-sign and issue the National Trade Certificates to successful candidates; 9. to recommend the provision of additional training facilities, wherever necessary, and render such assistance in the setting up of additional training programmes as may be necessary; 10.to advise the State Government regarding expenditure on different raining schemes; and 11.to perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the State Government”. 7. The State Government has come out with a Technical Education Policy (Annexure P-4). The wholesome principle for preparing the Technical Education Policy is to encourage private sector participation in establishment of new world class technical institutions in emerging areas of Engineering/Technologies and also to strengthen industry institutes interaction for enhancing employability of Himachali youths. The State Government has welcomed the participation of the private sector as per the Technical Education Policy. The department of Technical Education has framed the guidelines for the vocational training centres (Annexure P-5). The procedure for admission has been stipulated in para 2.3. Para 2.6 deals with academic session. Para 4.2 deals with the mechanism under which the committee has to be constituted by the Director, Technical Education for the purpose of inspection. 8. The department of Technical Education has framed the guidelines for the vocational training centres (Annexure P-5). The procedure for admission has been stipulated in para 2.3. Para 2.6 deals with academic session. Para 4.2 deals with the mechanism under which the committee has to be constituted by the Director, Technical Education for the purpose of inspection. 8. In furtherance to achieve the importance visualized in the Technical Education Policy and the guidelines Annexure P-5, the State Government permitted the private participation in setting up of the vocational training centre in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The letters of intents were issued in favour of the members of the petitioner’s association permitting them to run various courses, including Art and Crafts, Hotel Management, Ayurveda Pharmacist, Physical Training Instructor, Library Science etc. The Director of Technical Education had been issuing admission notices like Annexure P-7 for admission to vocational courses under the State Council for Vocational Training for the session 2007-08. 9. The members of the petitioner’s association have spent considerable amount in building infrastructure for running the various educational courses under the umbrella of the State Council for Vocational Training. These institutions were issued letters of intents and approval by the State Government after ensuring due compliance with the guidelines issued vide Annexure P-5. A decision was taken in the proceedings of the 9th meeting of State Council for Vocational Training on 27.4.2006 to encourage private sector to open more vocational training centres in the State and Industrial Training Centres. It was also decided that in certain courses in which large number of trainees have been admitted may not be permitted and in its place new courses as per the demand of market/industry be started. Similarly, in the proceedings of 10th meeting of State Council for Vocational Training held on 21.8.2007, it has been decided to renew the affiliation of existing institutions numbering 112 and to give approval to open new Vocational Training Centres numbering 116. However, despite the endeavour of the State Government to promote and encourage the participation of the private sector, the State Government has not given permission to the institutions to run the vocational courses for the academic session 2007-08. The members of the petitioner’s association made representations to the State Government to do the needful. 10. However, despite the endeavour of the State Government to promote and encourage the participation of the private sector, the State Government has not given permission to the institutions to run the vocational courses for the academic session 2007-08. The members of the petitioner’s association made representations to the State Government to do the needful. 10. The respondent-State has taken a stand in the reply that the institution established must fulfill the requirements of the norms and guidelines of various apex bodies like All India Council for Technical 11. Education, Pharmacy Council of India, National Council for Vocational Training and State Council for Vocational Training. It has also been averred in the reply that the whole issue of admission to vocational training centres was taken up in the Cabinet meeting on 25.11.2008 and consequently the decision was taken vide Annexure R-1 dated 19.12.2008. The text of letter dated 19.12.2008 reads thus: “I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that the State Government has carefully considered the matter relating to admission to SCVT affiliated Courses and after consideration has taken the following decisions:- 1. Institutes running Art & Craft, P.T.I and Library Science Courses may be asked to obtain recognition from the NCTE, Education Department to also ensure that no other private institute functioning in the territory of H.P. will run these courses without the approval of NCTE and withdraw their recognition if found violating. 2. The Ayurveda Pharmacist course be permitted only after NOC of the Ayurveda Department and approval of Central Council for Ayurveda. Ayurveda Department be associated at the time of inspection, formulation of syllabus and examination. The Institutes should also make arrangement for providing training in consultation with the Department of Ayurveda. 3. Following courses be permitted only after NCVT approval. (i) Pump Operation & Maintenance (ii) Motor Winding & Electric Wiring (iii) Beautician (iv) Multi Purpose Mechanic (Electronics & Electrical) (v) Light Motor Vehicle Driver-cum-Maint. Mech.-LMV (vi) Plumbing & Sanitation 4. Following courses be permitted to start after associating the Department concerned for the purpose of inspection, syllabus and examination etc. (i) Mass Communication (ii) Hotel Management & Hospitality Services (iii) Tourism & Travel (iv) Marketing & Advertising (v) Textile Technician (vi) Textile Printing & Dyeing 5. All institutes be inspected again as per the norms prescribed with regard to staff,infrastructure and syllabus, etc. (i) Mass Communication (ii) Hotel Management & Hospitality Services (iii) Tourism & Travel (iv) Marketing & Advertising (v) Textile Technician (vi) Textile Printing & Dyeing 5. All institutes be inspected again as per the norms prescribed with regard to staff,infrastructure and syllabus, etc. as per the revised proforma finalized in the meeting chaired by Chief Secretary on 22.11.2008 by a team of Officers of the Department of Technical Education and the concerned Departments having expertise in that field. This Committee will ensure that the norms are met and will be responsible for any shortcoming found later on. 6. Seats remaining vacant after first counselling of 85% for Himachali bonafide be allowed to be filled up from outside Himachali candidates. 7. Counselling for admission to various courses being run by the institutes be done by the Institutes at their own level as per the procedure to be prescribed by the Department.” You are, therefore, requested to take immediate necessary action accordingly. The implementation report may be sent to this Department within 7 days positively.” 12. The petitioner’s association filed detailed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondent-State. It is, inter alia, averred in the rejoinder that the few members of the association had approached the National Council for Technical Education as well as Central Council of Indian Medicines seeking clarification whether it was necessary to seek approval by these institutions for running Art and Crafts, Physical Training Instructor and Ayurveda Pharmacist courses. The Court directed the learned Additional Advocate General on 28.5.2009 to seek instructions from the State as to what was the stand of the Government with regard to holding of examination for these institutions. Thereafter the Court passed the following order on 18.6.2009: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. On 28.5.2009, this court was pleased to direct that the learned counsel for the respondents shall obtain instructions regarding holding of examination for the petitioners institutions. During the course of the arguments, learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the Director of Technical Education H.P. has informed that the matter of conducting the examination by the petitioners institute is in active consideration by the State Government and outcome of the same is yet to come and for that purpose six weeks time may be granted. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter may kindly be listed at the earliest. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter may kindly be listed at the earliest. In view of the above submission, the matter be listed on 29th June, 2009. Liberty to mention.” 13. The learned Additional Advocate General informed the Court on 29.6.2009 that the relevant affidavit was proposed to be filed within three days. Thereafter the supplementary affidavit was filed by the State Government on 2.7.2009. It is borne out from the contents of the supplementary affidavit that the State Government had inspected 144 institutions and cases of 110 institutions were turned down. In fact, the State Government had constituted eight teams to inspect the premises of all the Vocational Training Centres in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The matter with regard to final decision regarding 144 institutions was to be put up before the Government as per letter dated 27.6.2009. The judgment was reserved on 3.7.2009. Thereafter the State Government filed CMP No. 4625/2009 to permit it to place on record copy of letter dated 3.7.2009. 14. Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has brought to the notice of the Court that on 18.7.2009, the Cabinet has taken certain decision regarding State Council of Vocational Training courses in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This decision was not placed on record by the respondent-State. Thereafter the State has filed additional affidavit on 21.7.2009 to take on record Annexure R-1 dated 18.7.2009. It is contained in this affidavit that the Cabinet has not approved running of Art and Craft, Library Science and Physical Training Instruction courses. However, regarding the course of Ayurveda Pharmacist, the same was left to be decided by the Ayurveda Department as per its norms. 15. The members of the petitioner’s association have been granted affiliation by the State Government for running various courses, including Art and Craft, Library Science, Physical Training Instruction and Ayurveda Pharmacist etc. as per the material placed on record. These institutions have been issued letters of intents. The State Government had conducted the test for admission to these Vocational Training Centres. These institutions have fulfilled the norms prescribed by the State Council for Vocational Training as well as the guidelines Annexure P-5. The institutions have raised necessary wherewithal to run the courses. In normal circumstances these institutions were permitted to run the courses for which the approval/affiliation was granted by the State Government. These institutions have fulfilled the norms prescribed by the State Council for Vocational Training as well as the guidelines Annexure P-5. The institutions have raised necessary wherewithal to run the courses. In normal circumstances these institutions were permitted to run the courses for which the approval/affiliation was granted by the State Government. However, due to the decision taken by the Cabinet on 25.11.2008 which culminated in the issuance of Annexure R-1 dated 19.12.2008, it was made compulsory for the institutions running Art and Craft, Library Science and Physical Training Instructor courses to obtain approval of National Council for Vocational Training and other apex bodies. The institutions running Ayurveda Pharmacist course were to be permitted to run the course only after the approval from the Central Council for Ayurveda. 16. The State Government, as noticed above, had constituted eight committees to inspect the premises of all the institutions to ensure whether it conforms to the norms prescribed by the State Council for Vocational Training and the guidelines Annexure P-5. The committee had rejected cases of 110 institutions. In other words, it has decided to grant approval to the 144 institutions. The recommendations made by the Department on the basis of the recommendations/observations of the select committee have been annexed with the petition as Annexure R-1. A bare perusal of the recommendations/observations reveals that it has recommended Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor. Library Science and Ayurveda Courses subject to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the National Council for Technical Education etc. as per decision dated 19.12.2008. However, now the Cabinet has taken a diametric opposite stand. The earlier decision of the Cabinet was that the institutions running Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor, Library Science and Ayurveda Courses will be permitted to run the courses after the approval/No Objection Certificate by the apex bodies. Cabinet on 18.7.2009, has decided not to accord approval to these courses. It is true that the Cabinet is not required to assign reasons why it has adopted a particular course. However, it was necessary for the respondents to convey the reasons to the Court to enable it to effectively adjudicate upon this petition in the supplementary affidavit. 17. Anybody who decides anything having civil or evil consequences must assign reasons. The reasons may not be very elaborate, but the same must reflect due application of mind. However, it was necessary for the respondents to convey the reasons to the Court to enable it to effectively adjudicate upon this petition in the supplementary affidavit. 17. Anybody who decides anything having civil or evil consequences must assign reasons. The reasons may not be very elaborate, but the same must reflect due application of mind. Transparent and reasons based decisions definitely promote accountability in a democracy. The power is coupled with the duty to take a decision in a just and fair manner. The citizens must know why decision has been taken adverse to their interests by a particular body. In case the citizens are made aware of the reasons, it will leave the window open for them to improve their case. The decision in opaque manner breeds uncertainty. There has to be precision and accuracy in the decisions taken by the highest bodies leaving as far as possible no scope for ambiguity. 18. The State Government is free to formulate its policy/laws. It is, however, equally settled that while deviating from the earlier policy, there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The members of the petitioner’s association have been permitted to run the institutions for Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor, Library Science and Ayurveda Courses etc. and there was no mandatory requirement at that time to seek the No Objection Certificate of the apex bodies. This decision was taken only on 25.11.2008. This decision has also been deviated in the decision dated 18.7.2009. There should be consistency in the policy matters of the State Government as well. The consistency is one of the facets of the rule of law. The citizens must know the stand of the State Government in explicit manner to run their affairs efficiently. The condition of getting the approval from the apex body was taken on 25.11.2008. Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has failed to point out any law/regulations under which the approval of the apex bodies was a condition precedent for running Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor, Library Science and Ayurveda Courses. These conditions can be insisted upon, if these are provided either under the Central or the State enactment. 19. The State Government at its own wisdom has constituted the State Council for Vocational Training and has also prepared the guidelines vide Annexure A-5. These conditions can be insisted upon, if these are provided either under the Central or the State enactment. 19. The State Government at its own wisdom has constituted the State Council for Vocational Training and has also prepared the guidelines vide Annexure A-5. The institutions, which have already conformed to these guidelines and norms of the State Council for Vocational Training were to be permitted to run all the courses for which the approval/affiliation was granted to them at the time when they were set up. The members of the petitioner’s association have altered their position to their detriment by investing huge amount while setting up vocational centres in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The members of the petitioner’s association have been deprived of getting students for the academic session 2007-08. The same situation has prevailed for the year 2008-09 except that the Cabinet has decided on 18.7.2009 to run few courses except Art and Craft, Library Science, Physical Training Instructor and Ayurveda Pharmacist. 20. The State Government has highlighted the role to be played by the private sector in setting up industrial institutions as is evident from the Technical Education Policy (Annexure P-4) and the guidelines prepared vide Annexure P-5. In fact, the principles laid down in the Technical Education Policy and guidelines have been followed by the State Government by permitting the institutions to have all the courses initially visualized. We share the anxiety of the State to ensure proper infrastructure and conformity to standards prescribed for these institutions. In the present case, 144 institutions were approved by the committees constituted by the State Government. The Department had recommended the courses to be run by these institutions as per Annexure R-1. The fact of the matter is that the institutions have been inspected and the Department has approved their courses as per the norms laid down for running these institutions. As far as 110 institutions are concerned, these could be re-inspected and the deficiencies pointed out in their cases were to be considered at par with the 144 institutions. The members of the petitioner’s association have also placed on record copy of letter issued by the Pharmacy Council of India. The Pharmacy Council of India has stated that it is not supposed to issue any ‘No Objection Certificate’ before running the courses as decided by Cabinet in its meeting held on 25.11.2008. The members of the petitioner’s association have also placed on record copy of letter issued by the Pharmacy Council of India. The Pharmacy Council of India has stated that it is not supposed to issue any ‘No Objection Certificate’ before running the courses as decided by Cabinet in its meeting held on 25.11.2008. The running of these institutions is to be regulated under the umbrella of National Council for Vocational Training and State Council for Vocational Training at the State level, including technical education policy and the norms prescribed vide Annexure P-5. 21. Mr. P.K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that this Court cannot go into the question of change in the policy of the State Government reflected in latest orders. We are of the considered view that though the scope of judicial review is limited to look into the policy matters, however, it is not totally prohibited. In case there is arbitrariness, unreasonableness, capriciousness and massive departure from the previous policy without assigning any reason, the Court can interfere. 22. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others versus State of U.P. and others, (1991) 1 SCC 212 have held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of Government policy. Their Lordships have further held that it is imperative and implicit in Article 14 that a change in policy must be fair. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in the action of the State. Their Lordships have held as under: “29. It can no longer be doubted at this point of time that Art. 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. (See Ramana Dayaram, Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCR 1014: (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1980) 3 SCR 1338: (AIR 1980 SC 1992)). In Col. (See Ramana Dayaram, Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCR 1014: (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1980) 3 SCR 1338: (AIR 1980 SC 1992)). In Col. A. S. Sangwan v. Union of India, 1980 (Supp) SCC 559: (AIR 1981 SC 1545), while the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by the statute or rule, was held to be wide, it was emphasised as imperative and implicit in Art. 14 of the Constitution that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Art. 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touch-stone, irrespective of the field of activity of the State, has long been settled. Later decisions of this Court have reinforced the foundation of this tenet and it would be sufficient to refer only to two recent decisions of this Court for this purpose. 30. In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC 293 : (AIR 1989 SC 1642), the matter was re-examined in relation to an instrumentality of the State for applicability of Art. 14 to all its actions. Referring to the earlier decisions of this Court and examining the argument for applicability of Art. 14, even in contractual matters, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for himself and Kania, J., reiterated that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason......... actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Art. 226 or Art. 32 of the Constitution. Ranganathan, J. did not express any opinion on this point but agreed with the conclusion of the other learned Judges on the facts of the case. It is obvious that the conclusion on the facts of the case could not be reached by Ranganathan, J. without examining them and this could be done only on the basis that it was permissible to make the judicial review. Thus, Ranganathan, J. also applied that principle without saying so. It is obvious that the conclusion on the facts of the case could not be reached by Ranganathan, J. without examining them and this could be done only on the basis that it was permissible to make the judicial review. Thus, Ranganathan, J. also applied that principle without saying so. In view of the wide-ranging and, in essence, all pervading sphere of State activity in discharge of its welfare functions, the question assumes considerable importance and cannot be shelved. The basic requirement of Art. 14 is fairness in action by the State and we find it difficult to accept that the State can be permitted to act otherwise in any field of its activity, irrespective of the nature of its function, when it has the uppermost duty to be governed by the rule of law. Non-arbitrariness, in substance, is only fair play in action. We have no doubt that this obvious requirement must be satisfied by every action of the State or its instrumentality in order to satisfy the test of validity.” 23. The Apex Court in Union of India and others versus Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another, (2001) 8 SCC 491 have laid down that where the decision of the authority is in regard to a policy matter, the Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere since these policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision, but then this does not mean that the courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinize whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record. Their Lordships have held as under: “12. A perusal of the said letters shows that the Board adopted this policy keeping in mind the need to assure reliability and quality performance of the governors and its spare parts in the context of sophistication, complexity and high degree of precision associated with governors. It is in this background that in para (i) the letter states that the spares should be procured on proprietary basis from EDC. It is in this background that in para (i) the letter states that the spares should be procured on proprietary basis from EDC. This policy proceeds on the hypothesis that there is no other supplier in the country who is competent enough to supply the spares required for the governors used by the Indian Railways without taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner has been supplying these spare parts for the last over 17 years to various Divisions of the Indian Railways which fact has been established by the writ petitioner from the material produced with both before the High Court and this Court and which fact has been accepted by the High Court. This clearly establishes the fact that the decision of the Board as found in the letter dated 23-10-1992 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. On behalf of the appellants, it has been very seriously contended before us that the decision vide letter dated 23-10-1992 being in the nature of a policy decision, it is not open to Courts to interfere since policies are normally formulated by experts on the subjects and the Courts not being in a position to step into the shoes of the experts, cannot interfere with such policy matters. There is no doubt that this Court has held in more than one case that where the decision of the authority is in regard to a policy matter, this Court will not ordinarily interfere since these policy matters are taken based on expert knowledge of the persons concerned and Courts are normally not equipped to question the correctness of a policy decision. But then this does not mean that the Courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record. But then this does not mean that the Courts have to abdicate their right to scrutinise whether the policy in question is formulated keeping in mind all the relevant facts and the said policy can be held to be beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonableness, bearing in mind the material on record. It is with this limited object if we scrutinise the policy reflected in the letter dated 23-10-1992, it is seen that the Railways took the decision to create a monopoly on proprietary basis on EDC on the ground that the spares required by it for replacement in the governors used by the Railways required a high degree of sophistication, complexity and precision, and in the background of the fact that there was no party other than EDC which could supply such spares. There can be no doubt that an equipment of the nature of a spare part of a governor which is used to control the speed in a diesel locomotive should be a quality product which can adhere to the strict scrutiny/standards of the Railways, but then the pertinent question is : has the Board taken into consideration the availability or non-availability of such characteristics in the spare parts supplied by the writ petitioner or, for that matter, was the Board alive to the fact that like EDC the writ petitioner was also supplying the spare parts as the replacement parts for the GE governors for the last over 17 years to the various Divisions of the Railways. A perusal of the letter dated 23-10-1992 does not show that the Board was either aware of the existence of the writ petitioner or its capacity or otherwise to supply the spare parts required by the Railways for replacement in the governors used by it, an ignorance which is fatal to its policy decision. Any decision be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 24. Any decision be it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. If it is so then be it a policy decision or otherwise, it will be violative of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 24. In a recent judgment their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authority and another versus Joint Action Committee Allottee of SFS Flats and others, (2008) 2 SCC 672 have held that an executive order termed as a policy decision is not beyond the pale of judicial review. Their Lordships have further held that broad policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds: (a) if it is unconstitutional; if it is de hors the provisions of the Act and the regulations; (c) if the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation; and (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy. 25. In the case in hand, a massive departure has been made from the previous policy without taking into consideration the facts and material brought on record of this petition. The change in policy has been done in narrow manner while scrutinizing the broader policy as visualized at the time of the constitution of the State Council for Vocation Training and framing the Technical Education Policy. The decision taken by the Government not to permit the vocational training institutions to run the Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor, Library Science and Ayurveda Pharmacist is arbitrary, unreasonable and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 26. Mr. Shrawan Dogra appearing on behalf of the petitioner besides other submissions, as discussed hereinabove, has argued that the members of the petitioner’s association had been legitimately expecting that the decision taken by the State Government shall be as per the past practice whereby the institutions have been permitted to have the four courses, which now stand excluded by the latest decision of the State Government. He has relied upon Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. He has relied upon Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles applicable to the doctrine of legitimate expectation: “The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the Administrative Authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn.” 27. He has also relied upon Ram Pravesh Singh and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2006) 8 SCC 381. Their Lordships have held has under: “What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term established practice refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a legitimate expectation of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above fairness in action but far below promissory estoppel. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above fairness in action but far below promissory estoppel. It may only entitle an expectant : (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, courts may grant a direction requiring the Authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the legitimate expectation. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognized legal relationship with the authority. A total stranger unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings with the authority and who has not entered into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly.” 28. We are in agreement with the submissions made by Mr. Shrawan Dogra. The respondents 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. In other words, the members of the petitioner’s association were legitimately expecting that they shall be permitted to run the courses for which they have been granted the permission and letters of intents were issued. 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 few courses. There is no explanation why the State Government has not permitted the running of these courses. There is rather inconsistency in the stand of the State Government. 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 few courses. There is no explanation why the State Government has not permitted the running of these courses. There is rather inconsistency in the stand of the State Government. Initially, the State had permitted to run these courses and thereafter these courses were made subject to the approval/No Objection Certificate of the apex bodies without there being any legal necessity to do so. Thereafter it took ‘U’ turn to deny running of these courses altogether in arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The petitioner has rightly invoked the maxim of “legitimate expectation”. The State Government is bound by the principle of past practice to permit the petitioner to run these courses. 29. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The decision taken by the Cabinet on 18.7.2009 is quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to prepare schedule for counselling for State Council for Vocational Training courses including Art and Craft, Physical Training Instructor, Library Science and Ayurveda Pharmacist within a period of one week from today. It will be open to the respondent-State to inspect and reinspect the institutions, including 144 institutions, which have already been inspected to ensure that these institutions conform to the norms prescribed. The respondents are directed to re-inspect 110 institutions afresh if the institutions have already removed the objections pointed out by the committees constituted by the State Government. The petitioner’s association is also held entitled to costs, which are quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.