STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PADAM DEVI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Cited Judgements :-
A C SENTHIL KUMAR VS. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
GYAMAR GAGUNG VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DDA VS. MAHABIR PRASAD
MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT PLOYTECHNIC TEACHERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION KARAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
D B KAUSER VS. UNION OF INDIA
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. VENUGOPALAN
SASMITA MOHANTY AND ANR. VS. ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.
NCT OF DELHI VS. S P KHANNA
A H WHEELER VS. UNION OF INDIA
NIRANJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P
VS. STATE OF U P
S PURUSHOTHAM VS. STATE OF A P
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD VS. UOI
SAMRAT INT BHATTA AND ORS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX AND ORS.
DR. ASHOK NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM
STATE OF U P VS. VIJAY BAHADUR
PREM KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRIN SECY , NAGAR VIKAS GOVT
NEERAJ BABU VS. STATE OF U P
SURESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P
N. Venugopalan S/o Late K. Nateshan and others VS. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, ITI Ltd., The Additional Director (P and A), ITI Limited, The Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises rep. by its Directo
Indian Railways Major and Minor Caterers Association VS. Union of India
STATE OF KERALA VS. MANAGER NIRMAL PUPLIC SCHOOL
KAMDEO KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA
VIJAY BAHADUR VS. STATE OF UP
K P Manimaran VS. State of Tamil Nadu
M ELUMALAI VS. M BHUVANESWARI
SIBHA VS. UNION OF INDIA
K P SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
LAXMI TRANSPORT CO VS. CHIEF OPERATION MANAGER
MAGNA ELECTRO CASTING LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
RAJASTHAN AUTO CHALAK UNION INTACK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. TUSHR WELFARE SOCIETY
PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
BHAGIRATH & 4 ORS VS. D M , LAKHIMPUR KHERI & 2 ORS
ASIFUDDIN VS. STATE OF U P
SHIV PRATAP AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NAGAR VI
SMT. JYOTI KHARE VS. STATE OF U.P.
JAVED VS. STATE OF U P
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION ELECTRICITY AVENUE
GIRISH CHANDRA TRIPATHY VS. STATE OF ODISHA
ITI LTD VS. VENUGOPALAN N
I R C G VS. STATE OF GUJARAT
AMIT NANDI VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
RUMA PAL, J. -
(1.)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 educated youth.
(2.)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 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. In 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 steady income to the dairy farmers. In 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 weak, rural youths to perfect them in the skill of dairy farming. 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 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 the details of the training except to note that the training curriculum was as follows :
(3.)THE only eligibility criteria was that the training would be open to persons permanently residing in the "milk shed areas" in villages located within 5 to 10 kilometres radius of chilling plants or 5 kilometres radius from collection points of the milk route. THE candidates would have to possess one hectare irrigated or two hectare unirrigated 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 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 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 of such trained persons have set up their own dairy units.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.