STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PADAM DEVI
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-84
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 16,2002
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
PADAM DEVI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BUDHAN CHOUDHRY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]RAM KRISHNA DALMIA SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN JAI DAYAL DALMIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
KRISHNAN KAKKANTH VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
A C SENTHIL KUMAR VS. DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION [LAWS(MAD)-2008-9-165] [REFERRED TO]GYAMAR GAGUNG VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2019-11-194] [REFERRED TO]
DDA VS. MAHABIR PRASAD [LAWS(DLH)-2009-12-426] [REFERRED]
MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT PLOYTECHNIC TEACHERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION KARAD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
D B KAUSER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-159] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. VENUGOPALAN [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
SASMITA MOHANTY AND ANR. VS. ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2009-10-74] [REFERRED TO]
NCT OF DELHI VS. S P KHANNA [LAWS(DLH)-2005-11-50] [REFERRED TO]
A H WHEELER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-187] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPAK JYOTI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
S PURUSHOTHAM VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2006-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-2-205] [RELIED ON]
SAMRAT INT BHATTA AND ORS. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-106] [REFERRED TO]
DR. ASHOK NIGAM VS. LUCKNOW NAGAR NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-212] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. VIJAY BAHADUR [LAWS(ALL)-2008-4-88] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRIN SECY , NAGAR VIKAS GOVT [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
NEERAJ BABU VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-222] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-235] [REFERRED TO]
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 [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-194] [REFERRED TO]
Indian Railways Major and Minor Caterers Association VS. Union of India [LAWS(ORI)-2006-1-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. MANAGER NIRMAL PUPLIC SCHOOL [LAWS(KER)-2008-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
KAMDEO KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
BHABHA ATOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CA)-2013-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY BAHADUR VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
K P Manimaran VS. State of Tamil Nadu [LAWS(MAD)-2003-9-20] [REFERRED TO]
M ELUMALAI VS. M BHUVANESWARI [LAWS(MAD)-2007-4-340] [REFERRED TO]
SIBHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2021-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
K P SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-307] [REFERRED]
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI TRANSPORT CO VS. CHIEF OPERATION MANAGER [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-267] [REFERRED TO]
MAGNA ELECTRO CASTING LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2005-8-202] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN AUTO CHALAK UNION INTACK VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-1-21] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION VS. TUSHR WELFARE SOCIETY [LAWS(DLH)-2005-12-31] [RELIED ON]
PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-89] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH & 4 ORS VS. D M , LAKHIMPUR KHERI & 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
ASIFUDDIN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-341] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRATAP AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NAGAR VI [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-202] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JYOTI KHARE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-167] [REFERRED TO]
JAVED VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-200] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION ELECTRICITY AVENUE [LAWS(MAD)-2005-1-135] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH CHANDRA TRIPATHY VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
ITI LTD VS. VENUGOPALAN N [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-116] [REFERRED TO]
I R C G VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
AMIT NANDI VS. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2003-12-38] [REFERRED TO]
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 :JUDGEMENT_426_JT4_2002Html1.htm
(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.
(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.