ivil Appeal Nos1756 59 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 1711990 of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP Nos1096210901 10902 and 10903 of 1987
Raju Rama Chandran for the Appellants
Prem Malhotra for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KJAGANNATHA SHETTYJ
We grant Special Leave and proceed to dispose of these appeals
These appeals preferred against the decision of the Allahabad High Court raise common questions as to the scope of Regulations 172 and 173 of the UP State Road Transport Corporation Employees Other than officers Service Regulations 1981 the Regulations 
277 The respondents were appointed as drivers in the erstwhile UP Government Roadways
Upon the formation of the UPState Road Transport Corporation Corporation  they were absorbed in the services of the Corporation
The Corporation has framed the Regulations inter alia prescribing medical test to drivers every year for the purpose of assessing their suitability for the job
Pursuant to these Regulations the Managing Director of the Corporation issued a circular dated December 191986 stating that all drivers should be medically examined and those found unsuitable either because of ill health or poor eye sight be not given duty and their services be dispensed with
This was followed by another circular dated March 12 1987 by which the Managing Director directed the Regional Managers to terminate the services of the drivers who are medically found unfit to drive the vehicles
It was also directed in the circular that such employees whose services are dispensed with should be paid benefits like retrenchment compensation under Section 6N of the UP Industrial Act
In the beginning of 1987 all the respondents were subjected to medical examination and it was found that their eye sights were defective
In view of the medical report the Corporation discharged them with immediate effect by paying them one month salary in lieu of notice and also retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act
The respondents challenged their retrenchment by means of writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court
The High Court has allowed the writ petitions directing the Corporation to offer alternative jobs to the respondents
The Corporation being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court has appealed to this Court
Regulations 172 and 173 read as follows 172 A person appointed to the post of driver will be required to undergo medical test particularly vision test every year or at such intervals as may be prescribed by the General Manager from time to time
173 The service of a person who fails to pass the fitness test referred to in the sub regulation 2 may be dispensed with 278 Provided that the persons whose services are so dispensed with may in the discretion of the Corporation be offered alternative job
 Regulation 172 requires that the drivers have to undergo medical test particularly vision test every year or at such intervals as may be prescribed by the General Manager of the Corporation
Regulation 173 has two branches
The first branch provides power to the Corporation to remove the driver from the service who fails to pass the medical test
The second branch of Regulation 173 though styled as proviso also appears to be an independent branch
It is not proviso
The proviso ordinarily carves out an exception from the general rule enacted in the main provision
However sometimes the insertion of a proviso by the draftsman is not strictly adhered to its legitimate use and it may be in substance a substantive provision adding to and not merely excepting something out of or qualifying what goes before it
The proviso with which we are concerned in Regulation 173 does not carve out an exception from the general rule contained in the first branch
It is an independent and substantive provision providing discretion to the Corporation to offer an alternative job to the retrenched driver
This offer is to be made after the exercise of power under the first branch of Regulation 173
There is therefore no doubt that the second branch of Regulation 173 is a substantive provision and not in the nature of a proviso to first branch thereof
The first branch of Regulation 173 appears to be in the public interest
The driver who is found medically unfit to drive the vehicle on the public road certainly cannot be permitted to continue as a driver
His driving licence is liable to be revoked
His continuance as driver would perhaps be perilous to the interests of passengers and pedestrians
The Corporation therefore has been empowered to remove him from service as driver
At the same time the second branch to Regulation 173 shows concern for the person who has been removed from service for want of medical fitness
It confers discretion on the Corporation to offer him an alternative job
What does this mean in practical terms Does it mean that the retrenched driver has a statutory right to get an alternative job Is it obligatory for the Corporation to offer an alternative job to the driver who is certified to be medically unfit for the driver s job The High Court has expressed the view that the Corporation before terminating the service of a driver who fails to satisfy the medical test is obliged to offer him an alternative job and that offer shall be in writing
In other 279 words the High Court seems to be of the opinion that the proviso to Regulation 173 imposes an obligation on the Corporation to offer an alternative job to all those who are found medically unfit to carry on their duties in the existing jobs
The view taken by the High Court appears to be fallacious
The discretion conferred by Regulation 173 confers no vested right on the retrenched workmen to get an alternative job in the Corporation
Like all other statutory discretion in the administrative law Regulation 173 creates no legal right in favour of a person in respect of whom the discretion is required to be exercised other than a right to have his case honestly considered for an alternative job by the Corporation
The High Court was equally in error in directing the Corporation to offer alternative job to drivers who are found to be medically unfit before dispensing with their services
The Court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority that ought to be made in the exercise of discretion in a given case
The Court cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law
The Court could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law
Whether alternative job is to be offered or not is a matter left to the discretion of the competent authority of the Corporation and the Corporation has to exercise the discretion in individual cases
The Court cannot command the Corporation to exercise discretion in a particular manner and in favour of a particular person
That would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court
In the instant case the Corporation has denied itself the discretion to offer an alternative job which the regulation requires it to exercise in individual cases of retrenchment
As earlier stated the Managing Director has issued two circulars i dated December 19 1986 and ii dated March 12 1987 directing the Regional Managers to dispense with the services of the drivers who are found to be medically unfit to drive the vehicles
It is directed in the circulars that such drivers should be paid benefits like retrenchment compensation which they are entitled to under the UPIndustrial Disputes Act
The circulars thus leave no scope for exercising discretion to consider the individual cases of retrenched drivers for any alternative job
It may be stated that the statutory discretion cannot be fettered by self created rules or policy
Although it is open to an authority to which discretion has been entrusted to lay down the norms or rules to regulate exercise 280 of discretion it cannot however deny itself the discretion which the statute requires it to exercise in individual cases
The concerned authority of the Corporation therefore notwithstanding the said circulars are required to consider the cases of retrenched drivers for alternative jobs
Counsel for the respondents argued that the object of Regulation 173 was to rehabilitate the drivers who are found to be medically unfit to drive vehicles and it is therefore obligatory for the authority or Officer of the Corporation to exercise discretion in favour of such drivers by offering them alternative jobs
But counsel for the Corporation considers that it is an absolute discretion of the Corporation to offer or not to offer an alternative job to such drivers and there is no compulsion in the matter
These are in our opinion extreme contentions which are not sustainable under law
There are two aspects to be borne in mind in exercising the discretion
Firstly there are constraints within which the Corporation has to exercise its discretion
The Corporation is a public utility organisation where medicating motion is efficiency and effectiveness of public service
Efficiency and effectiveness of public service are the basic concepts which cannot be sacrificed in public administration by any statutory corporation
The Corporation has to render this public service within the resource use and allocation
It is within these constraints the Corporation has to exercise its discretion and perform its task
The second aspect relates to the manner in which the statutory discretion is to be exercised
The discretion allowed by the statute to the holder of an office as Lord Halsbury observed in Sharp vs Wakefield at 179 is intended to be exercised according to the rules of reason and justice not according to private opinion according to law and not humor
It is to be no arbitrary vague and fanciful but legal and regular
And it must be exercised within the limits to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself Every discretion conferred by statute on a holder of public office must be exercised in furtherance of accomplishment of purpose of the power
The purpose of discretionary decision making under Regulation 173 was intended to rehabilitate the disabled drivers to the extent possible and within the above said constraints
The Corporation therefore cannot act mechanically
The discretion should not be exercised according to whim caprice or ritual
The discretion should be exercised reasonably and rationally
It should be exercised faithfully and impartially
There should be proper value judgment with fairness and equity
Those drivers would have served 281 the Corporation till their superannuation but for their unfortunate medical unfitness to carry on the driver s job
Therefore it would not be improper if the discretion is exercised with greater concern for and sympathetic outlook to the disabled drivers subject of course to the paramount consideration of good and efficient administration
These are some of the relevant factors to be borne in mind in exercising the discretion vested in the Corporation under Regulation 173
In the result we allow these appeals
In reversal of the judgment of the High Court we direct the Corporation to consider the cases of respondents in the light of the observations made
In the circumstances of the case however we make no order as to costs
DRL Appeals allowed


Summary:
In the appellant State there were number of educational institutions running teachers straining course
Recognition was not accorded to some institutions as they did not fulfill the conditions
In other cases the recognition was under consideration
Admittedly none of the respondent institutions was accorded recognition
Since the Education Department did not permit their students to appear at the Public Examination the respondent institutions filed a Writ Petition before the High Court praying for direction to the appellant State to recognise the institutions and also for a direction permitting their students to appear at the Public Examination
Following the decision of the Full Bench in similar cases the Division Bench directed the appellant State to arrange for supplementary examination in respect of the students of the respondent institutions
Against the said Judgment the State has preferred these appeals by special leave
Allowing the appeals this court HELD 11
In the absence of recognition from the Education Department the students pursuing their studies in such Institution could not appear at the public examination held by the Education Department
The Full Bench rightly held that students of unrecognized educational 232 institutions could not be permitted to appear at the public examination held by the Government
On its own findingss the Full Bench should have refused relief to the petitioners
The Full Bench s directions permitting the student to appear at the examination and directing the appellant authorities to make a special provision for supplementary examination were unauthorized and wholly unjustified
234E G 12
The Court cannot be a party to direct the students in disobey the statue as that would be destructive of the rule of law
Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian ground contrary to law
Since the Division Bench issued the said orders following the Judgment of the Full Bench the orders are not sustainable in law
Nageshwaramma vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1986Suppl SCC 166 and AP Christians Medical Educational Society vs Government of Andhra Pradesh  Anr   relied on
21 Under Article 30 of the Constitution minorities based on religion or language have fundamental freedom to establish educational institutions of their own choice but the State has the right to prescribe regulatory provisions for ensuring educational excellence
Minority institutions which do not seek recognition are free to function according to their own choice but if such an institution seeks recognition from the State it has to comply with the prescribed conditions for granting recognition and in that event the minority institution has to follow the prescribed syllabus for examination courses of study and other allied matters
These conditions are necessary to be followed to ensure efficiency and educational standard in minority institutions
235C F 22
Even if a minority community has fundamental right to establish and administer educational institution it has no right to insist upon the State to allow its students to appear at the public examination without recognition or without complying with the conditions prescribed for such recognition
236A B All Bihar Christian Schools Association  Anr
vs State of Bihar  Ors
   relied on