Point of Law: Scope of judicial review when examining policy of government is to check whether it violates fundamental rights of citizen or is opposed to any statutory provisions or manifestly arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

i. That Clause 3 of the Rules of 2011 and any SoP thereto, may kindly declared as Ultra vires to the Parent Act, 2010 and further, direct respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for opening of the Para Veterinary Institution, in accordance with provision of Section 19, without any requirement of essentiality certificate, within time bound manner and also office order dated 05.05.2022 and 18.10.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside, in the interest of justice and fair play or in alternative

ii. Office order/letter dated 05.05.2022 and 18.10.2022 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner as per the provision of Act, Rules and SoP governing the field in time bound manner, in the interest of justice and fair play.

2. The petitioner-Society applied for essentiality certificate for opening of Para Veterinary Institute with intake of 100 seats on 10.10.2022. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 18.10.2022 on the basis of the instructions dated 05.05.2022.

3. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondents is highly arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted, as according to it, the so-called executive instructions dated 05.05.2022 cannot over-ride the provisions of the H.P. Para Veterinary Council Act, 2010 and the Rules framed thereunder. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material placed on record.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy in question, one needs to refer to the instructions dated 05.05.2022, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

“I am directed to refer to the subject cited above. In this connection, it is submitted that in the recent past it has been observed that there is a Mushroom growth of Veterinary Pharmacist Institutes. It seems that in the near future, the scope for employment for Diploma Holders in the filed as Veterinary Pharmacist is limited. In order to bring uniformity and to curtail Mushroom growth of Veterinary Pharmacist Institutes it has been decided that henceforth onwards no fresh institute be granted permission.

You are, therefore, requested that such fresh proposal regarding opening of new institutes be sent after policy decision is taken in this regard.”

5. Evidently, the aforesaid instructions only communicate the policy decision taken by the Government whereby it has been decided not to grant permission to the Veterinary Pharmacist Institutes in order to bring uniformity and curtail the mushroom growth of Veterinary Pharmacist Institutes, as it leaves no scope of employment to the diploma holders, in future.

6. It is more than settled proposition of law that the Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision unless a policy decision taken by the government is demonstratively capricious or arbitrary or suffers from vice of discrimination or infringes any statutes or provisions of the constitution.

7. It is also well settled that the Courts in exercise of their power of judicial review do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on grounds of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness. Indeed, arbitrariness, irrationality, perversity and malafide will render the policy unconstitutional. It is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular policy is vice or whether better public policy can be involved. Nor are the Courts inclined to strike down the policy at the behest of the petitioner, merely because it has been urged that a different policy could have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.

8. Courts do not and cannot act an appellate authority examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor the courts advise to the