Locus Standi To Be Satisfied To Make A Claim On Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation must first satisfy that there is a foundation for the same and thus has a locus standi to make such a claim.A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that for a beneficiary to have a legitimate expectation on invoking the privilege granted, it must be proved that the beneficiary has the locus standi to make such a claim. A person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has a locus standi to make such a claim.The matter came before the Court in an Appeal against a common judgement against two writ petitions challenging the action of the appellant, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, rejecting the admissions granted under discretionary quota at the fag end of the admission procedure. The Counsel appearing for the respondents, Advocates B.G.Harindranath and George T.J., contended that the action of appellants in rejecting the admission which had already been given and confirmed by creating a unique ID, furthermore at the fag end of the admission procedure, is unreasonable, unjust and has caused irreparable loss to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellant, it was contended that Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, an autonomous organization registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is fully financed by the Ministry of Education, Government of India (GoI). In July 2020, GoI launched the National Education Policy 2020, which among other things provides that a pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) of under 30:1 is to be ensured at the level of each school and in areas having a large number of economically disadvantaged students would aim for a PTR of under 25:1. Based on the policy decisions of the GoI, necessary amendments have been carried out in the admission guidelines in the Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) to align it with NEP, 2020. Under the special provisions, admissions being granted under the discretionary quota over and above the class strength have been discontinued in certain categories in order to streamline the admission process and ensure admission to more deserving students. The Counsel appearing for the respondents referred to the Apex Court decision in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations v. Union of India, in which the Court had held that under the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation', a person may have a reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. Such expectation may arise either from the express promise or from consistent practice, which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue. The Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that they had exercised the privilege, that is, on the basis of the recommendation letter given by the Chairman, VMC, she had submitted the application for admission, and hence she had derived a legitimate right to be admitted as per the guidelines issued.Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Assistant Solicitor General of India, Advocate S. Manu, referring to a 1994 Apex Court decision in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation, in which it was held that it is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to the right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystalized right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision, then the decision maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest, contented that even if substantive protection of such expectation is contemplated, that does not grant an absolute right to a particular person. It simply ensures the circumstances in which that expectation may be denied or restricted.The siding with the contentions raised by the appellant, the Court observed that a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has a focus standi to make such a claim. The Court further added that in considering the same, several factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must also be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in the public interest. If it is a question of policy, even by change of old policy, the courts cannot...

Locus Standi To Be Satisfied To Make A Claim On Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation: Kerala High Court

Athira Prasad

Tags