Petitioner Underwent Sterilisation Based On Promises Of 'Jyoti Yojna', State's Breach Of Promise Violates Principles Of Legitimate Expectation: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court has directed the State through a writ of mandamus to provide the benefits of the 'Jyoti Yojna' Scheme to every woman who has voluntarily undergone a sterilisation operation after giving birth to one or two children.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the scheme introduced in 2011 was originally intended to empower the females that fall within the aforementioned category; therefore, it must be implemented effectively.

“…both the principle of “legitimate expectation” and the “principle of estoppel” weigh heavily in favour of upholding the Government's promises under the “Jyoti Yojna” Scheme. To do otherwise would not only be legally questionable but would also be morally unjust, as it would leave individuals who acted in good faith without the support they were led to expect…”, the bench sitting at Jaipur said adding that the Government should have honoured its commitments and obligations under the scheme to ensure accountability in governance.

'Jyoti Yojna' Scheme was introduced as per the Government Circular dated 19.08.2011, for providing aforementioned women with the benefits of free education and preference in the selection of Asha Sahayogini, ANM (Auxiliary Nursing & Midwifery) and GNM (General Nursing & Midwifery) Courses.

In 2016, the said scheme was cancelled by the state. According to the circular, the petitioner woman was entitled to get free education up until post-graduation and for her Nursing course. The Scheme also provides for free medical facilities in government hospitals to the family members of the beneficiaries.

Though the petitioner underwent the process of sterilisation in 2012 after giving birth to a girl child in order to get the benefits of the scheme, her claim for a refund of expenses incurred by her for her education from Class X till the completion of the GNM course was denied by the Government. It was after the issuance of the 'Jyoti Card' in 2013 that the petitioner undertook the studies of Class X- GNM.

“…In the instant case, the petitioner who gave birth to a girl child and underwent sterilization, she did so in reliance of the Government's assurances outlined in the “Jyoti Yojna” Scheme. The said Scheme created a legitimate expectation that the Government would fulfill its obligations, including covering education expenses, medical costs and providing employment preferences in nursing rolls…”, the single judge bench added.

When a public authority, as a part of its administrative action, gives its citizens the promise of a benefit, relief or remedy and later arbitrarily denies such expectation created, then the principle of legitimate expectation in the domain of public law stands violated, the court stated after analysing the case law of National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S.Raghunathan & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 66. In the instant case, the Department of Medical, Health & Family Welfare acted against the public interest by arbitrarily revoking the benefits accrued under the Jyoti Yojna Scheme, the court concluded.

The principle of 'Promissory Estoppel' has also been contravened by the state when the petitioner woman reasonably relied on state's promise to her detriment, the court further observed in the order.

“…By undergoing sterilization and making life decisions based on the promises of the Jyoti Yojna, the woman altered her circumstances significantly. To backtrack on these commitments now would not only be unfair but would also undermine the trust and confidence citizens place in Government programs and policies”, the court emphasised further in the order.

As far as the petitioner's case is concerned, the court has directed the respondent authorities to apply the Jyoti Yojna Scheme for the benefit of the petitioner and reimburse the educational fees incurred from Class X till the GNM Course with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

In the end, the court also issued a general mandamus to the Chief Secretary of the State and other authorities to constitute a committee headed by the Department of Medical & Health. The Committee so constituted should scrutinise the pending claims and applications of eligible women under the scheme within three months.

Earlier, the petitioner's counsel contended before the high court that there is no reasonable explanation as to why the benefits under the Scheme have not been accorded to her so far. In turn, Additional Government Counsel submitted that the petitioner was duly informed about the cancellation of the scheme and a U.T.I Bond was issued in favour of her daughter.

Advocate Intjar Ali represented the petitioner. Additional Government Counsel Bharat Saini appeared for the respondent state authorities.

Case Title: Smt. Vandana W/o Bajrang Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health & Ors.

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5078/2018

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 21

Click Here To Read/ Download Order