IMPORTANT POINT
The State is not guilty of hostile discrimination in making available, as a matter of policy, a facility for additional training as veterinary pharmacist only to trainees of its abandoned veterinary scheme excluding existing Dairy scheme trainees.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 14-Allegation against appellant of hostile discrimination for making available facility of additional training exclusively for a particular group of trainees allowed by High Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Two Schemes Dairy Scheme and Veternary Scheme-Veternary Scheme abandoned-Its trainees were made available additional training as veternary pharmacists exclusively-Whether there was a rational classification? (Yes)-Whether this differentia had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by policy decision of appellant? (Yes)-Result-There is no hostile discrimination-Appeal allowed-Cases referred.
Held : The classification between the candidates under the two schemes was therefore distinct and clearly defined as regards the eligibility criteria of candidates, the choice of candidates, the training and post training assistance and most importantly the objectives of such training. The distinction made between the candidates of the two Schemes was permissible according to the principles enumerated by this Court [Budhan Chnoudhry v. The State of Bihar, 1955(1) SCR 1045; See also Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tandolkar & Others, 1959 SCR 279] as the classification was founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished Gopal Sahayaks from the Dairy farmers. The further question remains did this differentia have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the policy decision? The Veterinary Scheme was not concerned with any productive activity as the Dairy Scheme was. The Gopal Sahayaks were trained to set up practice to render basic veterinary services at the panchayat level. 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 para-veterinary doctors. As we have already noted the Dairy Scheme was aimed at making the candidates dairy farmers thereby also boosting the rural economy. It was not necessary for the candidates under the Dairy Scheme to take up training as Veterinary Pharmacists to fulfil their role as dairy farmers. If the candidates of the Dairy Scheme had been allowed to take up training as Veterinary Pharmacists, this might have equipped them to work in Dispensaries but it would have defeated the very purpose of the Dairy Scheme. Besides, the respondents had chosen to avail of the benefits of the Dairy Scheme. They are, therefore, obliged to accept the terms and conditions on which the benefit was made available namely take up cattle rearing [See Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Keralia and Others, 1997(9) SCC 495, p.36] In the circumstances, the refusal of the appellant to treat the respondents on par with the Gopal Sahayaks as far as the additional training as Veterinary Pharmacists was concerned was not unwarranted. The respondents having failed to discharge the onus of establishing their allegations against the appellant of hostile discrimination, it was not for the Court to interfere with the decision taken by the appellant. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeals allowed without any order as to costs. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-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:

3. 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.

4. 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:

1. Cattle raising including

first aid 10 weeks

2. Fodder raising 2 weeks

3. Artificial insemination 8 weeks

4. Visit to out stations 4 weeks

5. 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 kilometers radius of chilling plants or 5 kilometers radius from collection points of the milk route. The candidates would have to possess one hectare irrigated or two hectare un-irrigated 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.

6. 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.

7. A second scheme was formulated by the State Government in 1992. The scheme was called the Gopal Sahayak Yojana and is referred to hereafter as the Veterinary Scheme. The object of the Veterinary scheme was two fold. In the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 491

IMPORTANT POINTThe State is not guilty of hostile discrimination in making available, as a matter of policy, a facility for additional training as veterinary pharmacist only to trainees of its abandoned veterinary scheme excluding existing Dairy scheme trainees.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
The State is not guilty of hostile discrimination in making available, as a matter of policy, a facility for additional training as veterinary pharmacist only to trainees of its abandoned veterinary scheme excluding existing Dairy scheme trainees.