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 interfere with a decision.

The Court pointed out that it is settled law that an interference with the policy decision by the Court would not be warranted unless it is found that the policy decision is palpably arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or violative of the statutory provisions. Therefore, if the policy decision of the Government is the larger public interest, courts should not interfere with the same. 

Furthermore, Referring to an Apex Court decision in which it was held that the Court observed that exemption granted is a privilege; therefore in fiscal matters, a concession granted by the Government to the beneficiaries cannot confer upon them a legally enforceable right against the Government to grant a concession, except to enjoy the benefits of the concession during the period of its grant.

The Court observed that even before the revised guidelines were issued, the special provisions in Part B of the guidelines only said that the category of children referred to therein would be admitted over and above the class strength except where it is stated otherwise in the provisions itself. It does not say that the KVs are bound to give admissions to the categories of children referred to in Part B of the special provisions. The children recommended must also be otherwise eligible for admission as per the extant KVS admission guidelines. Therefore, merely because a student has a recommendation letter to his credit would not entitle him to of right to admission to the school. Further, there are no guidelines seen issued on the basis of which recommendation letter(s) can be given by the Chairman of VMC under his discretionary quotas.

Therefore the Court observed that prima facie, the guidelines giving such special privileges, are arbitrary because merely because a student has access to any of the functionaries conferred with the privilege of granting discretionary quotas, they cannot claim of right to be admitted to the KVs.

Thereby, the Court held 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 and the claim of the respondent in the Writ Petition does not fall under the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 

Only if a person has a right that can be enforced can they successfully contend that the procedure cannot be changed midway. However, in this present case, the Court held that respondents have not been able to establish any right as such to get admission; therefore, the Court agrees with the submission made by the ASG and observed that this is not a case where only a particular person's privilege has been taken away. Referring to previous Apex Court decisions in this regard, the Court further observed that even if that be so, the petitioners cannot challenge the same in the light of the decisions.

For cogent and plausible reasons, the Court observed that the Government changed its policy regarding discretionary quotas, which was well within its powers. Moreover, granting admission on the basis of recommendations alone is certainly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thereby held that revised guidelines based on the policy decision of the GoI cannot be interfered with by this Court.

ASG had also brought to the notice of the Court that the Principle of the KV to which the respondent had applied had discussed the matter with the Principle of the school where the child was studying prior, and the principal had agreed to re-admit the child to the school. The right of both the children to education would not in any way be affected.

Case Title: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Elna Chinchu 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 419

Click Here To Read/Download The Order