ivil Appeal No 3447 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 2641990 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 4059 of 1989
Rajinder Sachar Vijay Gupta Vivek Gambhir SK Gamb hir and Surinder Karnail for the Appellant
BS Banthia SS Khanduja and SK Agnihotri for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
Getting an admission into a professional course has become so difficult and competitive of late that litigation instituted by disappointed candidates has become a regular feature
431 This appeal arising out of such a context throws up for consideration certain aspects which call for a difficult exercise in balancing equities
We therefore proceed to discuss the facts and issues at some length
The appellant Dr Ku
Nilolaf Insaf and respondent No 4 Dr Devraj Jain were competitors for a single seat in the Master s Degree MD course in Radiology at Gandhi Medical College Bhopal
The appellant got admission to this seat in preference to Dr Jain because she had obtained average marks of 5960 per cent in the examinations of the MBBS course whereas Dr Jain had obtained only 5850 per cent
Dr Jain successfully challenged the admission granted to the appellant in preference to himself in a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr Insaf who has for feited her admission in consequence of the judgment of the High Court has filed the present appeal
In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the admission granted to the appellant was quashed by the High Court though she had admittedly got a higher percentage of marks than Dr Jain it is necessary to set out a few fur ther facts
Dr Jain and Dr Insaf both completed their MBBS course in the years 1983 87
However while Dr Jain had been admitted into and completed that course in the Gandhi Medical College Bhopal the appellant had initially joined her MBBS course in the MS Ramayya Medical College Bangalore wrote the first examination and complet ed the first year of the MBBS course there
Thereafter in August 1984 she made an application for her transfer to the Gandhi Medical College Bhopal
Her request was granted by the Gandhi Medical College with the approval of the State of Madhya Pradesh and with no objection from the Ramayya Medical College
Thereafter she sat in the second and third examinations pertaining to the MBBS degree along with Dr Jain and completed her MBBS course along with Dr Jain in 1987 from the Gandhi Medical College Bhopal
Thereafter both of them cleared their internship of one year and also joined a house job in Radiology in the same college and completed the same in August 1989
It was at this stage that both of them applied for being admitted to the MD course with the result already set out
As already mentioned it is not in dispute that if the total number of marks obtained by the two contestants in all the examinations of the MBBS degree are taken and re duced to an effective percentage and a common maximum as per the rules Dr Nilofar does get a higher percentage of marks than the respondent
In fact we 432 find from the papers filed before us that another candidate Dr Km
Indu Fotedar had obtained a percentage of 5904 which was also higher than the percentage obtained by Dr Jain
However she is no longer in the race for a seat in MD Radiology as she appears to have joined the MD course in medicine that was offered to her
Thus it was that the Radiology seat went to Dr Insaf
Dr Jain s challenge to the admission granted to the appellant cannot be a direct one as the latter had clearly secured higher percentage of marks than himself in the MBBS examinations
He therefore attacks her candida ture for the MD course on other grounds which may be described as collateral or indirect
According to him the transfer of the appellant from the Bangalore Medical College to the Bhopal Medical College was itself invalid and he urges that since the very admission of the appellant to the MBBS degree in the Bhopal College was invalid she could not at all have been considered for admission to the MD course which was available only to the institutional candi dates
The grounds on which the transfer of the appellant from Bangalore to Bhopal is challenged by Dr Jain are a The appellant had appeared in the pre medical test for admission to medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh
It is not known whether she passed the test or did not get a sufficiently high rank but the fact is that she did not get admission in any of the medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh
To overcome this difficulty she joined the Bangalore Medical College the admission to which did not perhaps require qualification in a pre medical examination by paying a capitation fee
She has thus circum vented the requirement of a pre medical test by getting admitted first at Bangalore and then getting a transfer to Bhopal b According to the rules no transfer of a candidate to a medical college in Madhya Pradesh was permissible to students of medical colleges outside the State who had secured admission in a college after paying a capita tion fee development fee or donation in any form
As the appellant had obtained admission in the Bangalore college by paying a capita tion fee her application for transfer to the Bhopal Medical College could not and ought not to have been entertained c The rules also require where a person makes an application for a transfer to a medical college in Madhya Pradesh that the application should state the grounds on which he got admission 433 in a medical college of another State and whether he had appeared for a pre medical test or similar examination of
that State
The appellant s application for transfer did not contain any reference to this crucial aspect which was fundamental to a valid transfer to the college in Madhya Pradesh d Even assuming that the transfer itself was not bad a comparison between the marks ob tained by the appellant and those obtained by the respondent was not a fair or proper one
The appellant had appeared for one examination at Bangalore and two examinations at Bhopal whereas Dr Jain had appeared for all the three examinations at BhopalAt Bangalore for the first year the appellant had three papers whereas in the Bhopal college there were only two papers in the first year
Having regard to the disparity in the syllabus the subjects for the examination the standards of valua tion and quality of teaching the comparison between himself and the appellant was not valid
If at all a comparison had to be made it should have been made by excluding the marks got by both in the first examination and taking into account Only the marks obtained by them in the other two examinations which were common to both
The above contentions found favour with the High Court quashed the admission of the appellant and directed Dr Jain to be admitted to that seat
Hence the present appeal
In our opinion contentions a and d cannot stand by themselves and rest for their validity on contentions b and c
While it is true that the appellant does not appear to have qualified in the premedical test for admission to colleges in Madhya Pradesh it cannot be said that she has circumvented the rules by first getting admitted to the Bangalore college and then seeking a transfer to Bhopal that course if permissible under the rules was unobjec tionable
So also the last contention by itself has no force
It is well known that in these competitive days students are not able to get admission in the first in stance in an institution at their own place and have very often to seek admission elsewhere initially and then try to get a transfer back
This is also envisaged by the rules which permit the transfer of a student only after the first year course is completed
In such cases if a valid transfer is made the position is as if the candidate has completed the course in the second place and the rules the validity of which are not in issue permit a comparison of the aver age of marks obtained by the candidates in all the examina tions after reducing them as a 434 percentage of a uniform maximum
There can therefore be no doubt that such transfers and comparisons can be valid and permissible
The real question therefore is whether there has been a valid transfer on the facts of the present case
An annexure has been filed before us it was also before the High Court which purports to set out the rules for transfer of the students from other medical colleges to Madhya Pradesh State medical colleges
Though the High Court and the parties before it proceeded on the basis that these were rules governing transfer there has been some controversy before us on this to which we shall advert later
The following rules are relevant for our present purpose 1
The applications from students for transfer from Medical Colleges outside the State and studying in 1st MBBS Pre Clinical block will not be considered
Applications of those candidates who have cleared the 1st MBBS examination of the university in Anatomy  Physiology including Biochemistry and are studying in higher classes will be considered provided the Col lege in which he was studying was a Medical Council of India approved College
Applications of only those will be consid ered who satisfy the following conditions in accordance with the premedical examination rules of Madhya Pradesh a possessed minimum qualification for ap pearing in the pre medical examination at the time of admission
b is a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh as per rules of Pre medical Examination of MP c was within the prescribed age limit as per rules of Premedical Examination of Madhya Pradesh at the time of admission
Government would consider relaxation of rules in respect of those candidates who are married to a Government Servant employed in the Madhya Pradesh State
Applications of those candidates for trans fer from 435 Medical Colleges outside the State will not be considered who have secured admission in a College after paying capitation development fee or donation in any form
Application should also state the grounds on which he got admission in a Medical College of another State and whether he had appeared for pre medical test or similar examination of that State 9
The appellant will submit a No Objec tion  Certificate of the concerned Medical College and the University where he was study ing before his transfer
The applicant will submit his applications with all the required information first to the Dean Medical College where he wants to be transferred and the application will then be routed through the Chairman Pre Medical Examination Board to Government for final orders
On the basis of these rules the objec tions to the transfer raised on behalf of Dr Jain may now be considered a A submission was made that the Bangalore college is not an approved medical college vide rule 2 above but this is not substanti ated
The document relied upon in support of this contention is only a list of medical colleges in India published by the Health Ministry of the Central Government
There is no mention in it that only these colleges and none else have been approved by the All India Medical Council
Also the list does not bear a date
It appears to be an old one and does not refer to any college recognised after 1979
There is nothing to show that the Banga lore medical college was established before that
That apart it appears that the Banga lore college is affiliated to the Bangalore University and there is no reason to believe that it was not an approved medical college
b The objection that the transfer is bad because the appellant had not qualified in a pre medical test conducted either in Madhya Pradesh or in Bangalore does not appear to be well founded
While the rules no doubt contain a reference to premedical tests rules 3 5 and 13 make it clear that the passing of a pre medical test is not a pre requisite for a transfer
No doubt rule 4 requires that the application for transfer should say whether the applicant had appeared for a pre medical or similar 436 test in the State from which a transfer is sought
The omission of the appellant in the present case to mention this in her applica tion may be a defect but in the absence of any clear rule to the effect that a pass in a pre medical test is an essential condition for transfer it cannot be treated as a vital defect vitiating the transfer
c There is however force in the contention that the transfer in the present case was violative of the first part of rule 4
This clearly precludes the consideration of an application for transfer from a person who had gained admission to a medical college on payment of a capitation fee development fee or donation
Neither the appellant nor the State contradicted Dr Jain s averment in the writ petition that the appellant had secured admission in the Bangalore college only on the basis of such payment
There is therefore an infringement of rule 4 atleast in part and we shall proceed to consider the effect of the same
But before we proceed to do so we should like to digress a little to make some general observations
From the facts stated earlier it is not clear how in the face of the specific provisions contained in the rules the appellant s transfer was considered and sanctioned particularly when the application had to be scrutinised by a number of authorities the Bhopal medical college the Chairman of the Pre medical Board referred to in rule 13 the University of Bhopal and the State Government
It is difficult to believe that they were not conscious that the limitations imposed by the rules operated in this case
The application of the appellant a copy of which has been placed before us contained a bare and simple request for transfer and nothing more and the authorities did not even care to call for the details required under the rules before taking a decision
The respondent has alleged that this was done by reason of the influence exerted by the appellant s father but this is not substantiated
All that has been brought out is that the appellant is a resident of Bhopal and her father is a doctor practising at Bhopal
In the circumstances we think that the authorities must have acted bona fide on considerations of sympathy towards and the hardship of the appellant in pursuing her course of study for a number of years at distant Bangalore
They must have thought that their decision would only help the appellant and harm no one
But the facts of the present case show how even well meant decisions which seem innocuous at the time they are taken can rebound in the long run and affect the interests of others in manner that could not have been even conceived of earlier
It is 437 therefore necessary to emphasise that in matters of this type the authorities should carefully and strictly apply the relevant rules
Now reverting to the question as to the impact of this infringement of the rules on the situation in the present case Sri Sachar appearing for the appellant puts forward two aspects for consideration
In the first place he sub mits that the rules relied upon for the respondent are merely internal guidelines or instructions not having the force of law and that a deviation therefrom here or there would not affect the validity of the order accepting the application for transfer
Sri Sachar may be right in saying this but unfortunately both parties and the High Court have proceeded on the basis that there were rules ie some instruments having statutory force
No material has been placed before us either to support or repel this assumption and so we will not be justified in treating them to be otherwise
However we think that even if they are viewed as rules they should not be treated as rigid inflexible and mandatory having in mind the context and purpose in which they are made
These are rules setting out circum stances in which the application for transfer will be grant ed and deal with a matter primarily concerning the applicant and the authorities
The validity of an order for transfer may be challenged contemporaneously by a third party whose claim for admission or transfer is superseded by such order but cannot be al lowed to be challenged by a third party because he finds in retrospect at a future point of time that it has affected his interests as a result of subsequent events
We would therefore hold that the order of the State of Madhya Pra desh permitting the transfer of the appellant cannot be struck down as void
There has been some irregularity but in the circumstances in which it was passed it was one within the competence of the State Government
The second answer furnished on behalf of the appellant to Dr Jain s challenge is that Dr Jain was aware even as early as 1987 that in the order of merit of MBBS candi dates the appellant ranked higher than the respondent
Apart from the fact that this was just a matter of arithmetic an order of merit had indeed been published by the University at the time the medical graduates of 1987 were being consid ered for house jobs
Reference is made in this context to a chart entitled Merit list for the selection of House Offi cers Gandhi Medical College Bhopal for the year 1988 placed at p 68 of the paper book before us This list is incomplete but it contains the names in order of merit of 58 students who had completed MBBS in 1987 438 who had apparently applied for house jobs in the college
It sets out their aggregate marks in the MBBS examina tions with certain adjustments and also the effective per centage thereof
The appellant s percentage is shown as 5960 and his rank as 37 Dr Indu Fotedar is at 44 with a percentage of 5904 and Dr Jain is No 49 with a percent age of 5850 Sri Sachar invites our attention to the Rules for Postgraduation MDMS course in clinical para clinical and nonclinical disciplines in medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh
These rules provide a scheme whereby a the marks obtained by candidates in the MBBS examina tions sometimes at different colleges and universities which have different maxima for the examinations are to be standardised to a common maximum b adjusted by giving certain penalty marks for example where a candidate has made extra attempts in any examination and bonus marks where he has some special distinctions in academics or extra curricular activities for example distinction in a subject or National Cadet Corps certificates and c determining the effective marks and their percentage
The process of selection of merit candidates for the post gradu ate course is outlined in rules 81 to 83
They read thus 81 Merit candidates in clinical subjects shall be selected from out of those who are completing their house jobs within that ca lender year
82 Candidates under 81 shall be selected by the Dean of the Medical College strictly on the basis of merit from amongst the students passing from that college on the recommenda tion of the college and Hospital Council or the PG Committee of the college 83 The merit list of candidates under 81 and 82 would be prepared by each Dean of the College every year and notified on the College Notice Board
Any objection or representation received within 10 days of notification would be considered by the Dean of the College who shall make modifications if necessary after placing the objection or representation before the College and Hospital Council or PG Committee
 On the strength of these rules Sri Sachar contends that the respondent not having preferred objections to the merit list referred to earlier is now estopped from challenging the merit list
439 We find that there is a good deal of confusion about the relevant facts in this regard
In the High Court the re spondent s case was that he had duly filed his objections to the merit list of 1989 in July 1989 and well within time
The list that is relied upon by him is a list published by the Dean which bears the heading Particulars of the candi dates who have applied for registration in MD Radiology for the year 1989 placed at page 49 of the paper book
It contains 9 names including Drs
Insaf Jain and Fotedar and the details of their period of study and internship
The last two columns are headed Effective Marks and Effective Percentage
They are not however arranged in order of merit but are arranged on a different basis
The first four names are of candidates who had applied for the MD course in Radiology whereas the others had applied also for admis sion to MD courses in other subjects
It is on the basis of this list apparently that the selections were made and in his petition for special leave before us the appellant also admitted this position
Sri Sachar however contends that the earlier list produced by him p 68 is the merit list referred to in the rules and not this one which does not even purport to be a merit list
The merit list of 1988 p 68 was clearly one prepared in the context of selection for house jobs in 1988
The rules regulating admissions for that purpose have not been placed before us
We can only guess from the contents and columns in the list that they apparently run on the same lines as the rules for admission for MD
If this be treated as the merit list referred to in rule 83 of the relevant rules Dr Jain is clearly precluded from challenging it after one year
But rule 83 refers to merit list for selec tion of candidates for the diploma course being published every year
None of the parties including the college au thorities have been able to clarify whether apart from the list at p 49 of the paper book any merit list for the year 1989 in respect of admission to MD courses on the pattern of the list at p 68 had at all been published by the Dean of the college
In this context we should  point out that the list earlier published p 68 contained all the relevant details for preparation of such a merit list
There is nothing before us to show that the procedure for adjustment standardisation and averaging were not the same for preparing a merit list for selection of house officers as for the selection of candidates to the MD courses outlined in rule 85 and this appears to be so from the adjustment columns in the list at p 68
The only differ ence is that this list is restricted only to the nine candi dates seeking admission to the MD course in radiology
Apparently having regard to the small number of applicants for the course in question the authorities merely
440 prepared a short list containing the relevant extracts regarding effective marks and percentage from the earlier list without calling it a merit list and made the selec tions
In the circumstances we think that there can be no practical or legal difficulty in treating the list at p 49 as the relevant merit list for the present purpose
Learned counsel for Dr Jain is therefore correct in saying that in this view he could and did lodge his objections within the time specified in rule 83 and he cannot be precluded from contesting the correctness or validity of the list on the grounds of delay
On strictly legal considerations therefore the respondent cannot be shut out from raising his objections at this stage
But it seems to us questions of this nature cannot be decided on considerations of pure law
Granting that it is open to Dr Jain to challenge the merit list one has to examine whether there are any limits to the scope of such challenge on grounds if not of law of justice and equity
Of course he can challenge the correctness of the order of merit he can challenge any errors in the marks taken into account or the adjustments made thereto and he can even challenge the eligibility of any of the candidates for consideration
But there are abvious limitations to such challenge
For example it would seem difficult to say that one can challenge the correctness of the marks that one of the other candidates has obtained in the examinations and call for the revaluation of some or all of his papers or to permit a contention that one of the candidates has not been properly awarded the MBBS degree and that therefore his application should be ignored
Their having obtained the marks noted in the list or a degree of a university or secured a transfer are actual events that have happened
There may have been some irregularity at some earlier stage but it does not go to the root of the matter so as to render the qualification void abinitio capable of being ignored without anything more at any time for any purpose
The position may be different where a person is claiming under a bogus degree
The appellant has obtained the degree after a regular course the only grievance is that she should not have been permitted to do part of it in a particular col lege
The legality or validity of such qualifications must be directly challenged and got set aside in independent proceedings
To permit a collateral attack on them in other proceedings as here will be beset with problems and com plications of a far reaching magnitude
For obvious reasons limitations have to be imposed on the grounds available for such challenge
The need for such circumspection will be better appreciated if another situation of a similar nature is considered
Suppose the competition between the two present contestants had arisen 441 not as it has just two years after the MBBS degree but say fifteen years later when they both apply for a post in a hospital or Government open to MBBS graduates
If in that situation it should be contended for Dr Jain that the appellant cannot be considered for the post because her transfer to the Bhopal medical college was bad and consequently that the MBBS degree obtained by her was not valid we think the answer to the contention must pat ently be in the negative
The need to avoid disturbing settled issues which affect the life and career of an indi vidual after a lapse of time or after the interposition of further events as a result of which he has rightly de veloped a sense of security has been emphasised by this Court in Mudgal vs Singh 1 relying on the earlier decisions in Makashi vs Menon  and Malcolm Lawrence Cecil D Souza vs Union 1975 Supp SCR 409
What should be a reasonable period beyond which or the intervening developments because of which such challenge cannot be permitted must depend on the facts and circum stances of each case
In the present case there are valid considerations why Dr Jain should not be allowed to challenge the merit list at this point of time
We have referred earlier to the plea of Dr Jain that he has challenged the merit list of 1989 within the period of time mentioned in the rules
Technical ly he is right as we have already held
But if we look at the position more closely we find that the precedence of the appellant over Dr Jain crystallised as soon as the MBBS results were published
We do not know whether any merit list of the results of the examination were published or not at that time but it cannot be that Dr Jain was not aware that the appellant had got higher percentage of marks than himself
At any rate this became clear when the merit list was published for the house jobs in August 1988
It is true that the place accorded to the appellant in that list did not prejudice Dr Jain in his selection for the house job
Still the rules of the university make it clear that the aggregate and average marks in the MBBS course would also be material for admission to the MD course
The merit list of 1989 is nothing but a reproduction of the merit list of 1988 confined to a narrower group of students of the same batch
The latter did show the appellant to have obtained more marks than Dr Jain and in this sense was adverse to his interests
The omission of Dr Jain to challenge the correctness of the list then lulled the appellant into a sense of security that the merit list was acceptable to all
We therefore think that Dr Jain should be barred on equitable considerations from challenging the order of merit at the present stage
Another important consideration which prevents us from giving 442 any relief to Dr Jain even if we accept all his conten tions is this
The MD course admission to which is the bone of controversy started in August 1989 and is coming to a close shortly
Though the appellant lost in the High Court she was permitted by this Court though obviously subject to the result of this appeal to continue attending the classes for MD in Radiology
Now she has almost com pleted her course and to deprive her of her seat at this stage apart from irretrievably harming her will not bene fit Dr Jain who cannot now be admitted against the MD seat of 1989
This again is a development which militates against the grant of any relief to Dr Jain
Before we conclude we should like to touch upon one more aspect
The course of events narrated above will show that Dr Jain has been the victim partly of a lapse on the part of the medical college authorities in properly applying the rules governing transfer and partly of courts  delay in disposing of his writ petition and the present appeal
In the course of the hearing therefore we were tempted to consider whether we should give some relief to Dr Jain by directing the authorities to consider his case for admission to the MD course atleast this year
On careful thought however we find it difficult to make any specific direc tions or recommendations for a number of reasons
In the first place we are told that Dr Jain has in the meantime undergone and completed a diploma course in Radiology and in terms of a rule recently promulgated is not eligible to apply for the MD course for another three years even if he is interested to do so
Secondly as noted already the rules permit admission in MD in any year only to candi dates who have finished their house jobs in that year and Dr Jain having completed his house job in 1989 may not be eligible to be considered for admission this year
Thirdly if any direction of the above nature is given by us it will operate to the prejudice of some other candidate who is eligible for admission to that course in the normal course
Fourthly it would not also have been possible for us even if we had come to the conclusion that Dr Jain and not the appellant should have been admitted in 1989 to direct the University to carry forward that vacancy and grant him admission to it now
We therefore refrain from giving any directions to the authorities in the matter as had been mooted in the course of the hearing
For the reasons above mentioned we have come to the conclusion that the appeal should be allowed and the appel lant s admission to the MD Radiology course 1989 91 should be upheld
We direct accordingly
No costs
YL Appeal allowed


Summary:
A letter addressed to this Court complaining about prevalence of bonded labour system in the quarries of Fari dabad District in Haryana_ State was treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution
Two Advocates were appointed as Commissioners to inquire into the working conditions of the stone quarry workers
Later this Court finding the necessity of an in depth investigation into social and legal aspects of the problem also appointed two Commissioners Dr SB Patvardhan and Mr Krishan Mahajan to study the working conditions provail ing in the various quarries within the Faridabad district with particular reference to violation of provisions of the Bonded Labour System Abolition Act of 1976 and Inter State Migrant Workmen Regulation of Employment  Conditions of Service Act
The Commissioner furnished their report on 28th of June 1982
The 3 Judge Bench heard the matter and In its Judgment reported in   dealt with various aspects of the problem and taking into account the information collected by Advocate Commissioners and the report made by Dr Patvardhan
The Court did not treat the writ petition as disposed of by its judgment and the application survived for further monitoring
This Court also appoInted Shri Laxmi Dhar Misra JoInt Secretary 525 in the Ministry of Labour Government of India as a Commis sioner to carry out the assignments stated in the judgment
Mr Laxmidhar Misra in due course submitted his report in two parts one dealing with the identification of the bonded labour and the second covering the inquiry into the implementation of the 21 directives
The petitioner Morcha filed a petition for contempt alleging that the directions were not being implemented
Mr Mahabir Jain of the Faculty of National Labour Institute was appointed to inquire into the measures and report on the degrees to which the 21 directives issued by the Court had been implemented and to present to the Court a clear picture of the issues involved for enabling it to make its own assessment and come to a conclusion as to whether the directions had been or were being implemented and also as to whether action for contempt was appropriate or in the matter of monitoring the social problem some other course was necessary to he adopted and in February 1989 the report was submitted to the Court
As the 3 Judge Bench had gone into the philosophy in volved in the matter in the Judgment what remains for consideration at this stage was more or less a clear review of the enforcement of the directives and assessment of the outcome for achieving the statutory purpose and the consti tutional goal and for the fulfilment of the hopes and expec tations
of this Court in that regard
The matter was heard for some time on the basis of these reports of Mr Jain and this Court reserved Judgment on 10th of July 1990
When the totter was about to he disposed a communication was received by the Court dated 24L1991 from the Director General of Labour Welfare in the Ministry of Labour that the total number of unrehabilitated bonded laboures was 523 upto 30111990 whereas the number to he 3993 according to the petitioner and on 21st February 1991 this court directed a Committee to check up the particulars and to furnish a report which was furnished on July 1 1991 from which it was understood that the total number of identified bonded labour is around 2000 and not 3993
The report indicated that the wages the facility of schooling and medical treatment availability of water provisions and scope for recreation are aspects which still require attention
No attention has been 526 bestowed by the inspecting authority
of the labour law enforcers to secure improved conditions of working
Allowing the petition this Court HELD 1
For a loan taken at an exorbitant rate of interest the debtor virtually sells himself to the creditor and gets bonded usually for a period of life and renders service for the purpose of satisfying the debt
The creditor anxious to exploit the situation ensures that the debt is never satisfied and often on the traditional basis of pious obligation the liability is inherited by the children of the original debtor
The system thus provides a built in mecha nism for continuation of the under privileged section of the society by the privileged few living therein
537H 538B 2
The bonded labourers are paid nominal wages and often their family members are not permitted to take remunerative jobs elsewhere without permission of the master
Normally such permission is not granted and the impoverished condi tion is allowed to continue to the advantage of the credi tor 538B C 3
Quarries ace located in a particular area away from habitation
On account ofnecessity for workmen in the area people from different parts of the country are made to live therein along with their families under very insanitary and inconvenient conditions
Health care of workmen and members of their families and education of the children as also the adults in such exclusive locality should be of the employer
To require a school to he built in such an area where there may not be adequate number of children for the purpose of schooling at the expense of the State exchequer may not he appropriate
That apart these institutions should he a part of the trade
In the manner the employer has to make provi sion for water and medical care it should also have the responsibility of providing schooling for the children of the workmen
Today emphasis is also being given on adult education
If appropriate facility is provided the workmen beyond their
working hours can also have scope for learning the three Rs and this could he through a process of adult education with State support under the relevant scheme
544G 545B 4
The State of Haryana must come forward to play its role in a better way
These are quarries located near about the industrial belt of Haryana and not far away from Delhi
Dust emanating from the working area in Haryana is bound to affect adversely the Delhi atmosp 527 here
If adequate importance is given to the angle of pollu tion the industry itself has to he regulaed or may have to be stopped
545B C 5
The State of Haryana has not taken Court s interven tion in the proper spirit and has failed to exercise appro priate control though some eight years back this Court had in clear terms laid down the guidelines and had called upon the public authority to take charge of the situation and provide adequate safeguards
545D E 6
The workmen engaged on fur time basis who are not prepared to return to their States are to he provided with a permanent base for residence at or near the work site This would necessitate reasonable housing supply of water a reasonable provision store at Land schooling facility of a hospital recreational facilities and atten tion tO the law and order problem
Perhaps near the area a police statiOn or an outpost could be located
If the work ers were insufficient in number a doctor could be taken as a visitor to the area at frequent intervals and instead of a regular school one single teacher could he provided to look after the health of the people
545G 546B 7
Court s judgment to regulate such matters has inher ent limitation
These are not schemes which could be conven iently monitored by a Court far less can the apex court keep track of the matter
its Registry has congestion
To get attention for a matter of this type from the Court is
bound to take some time
Human problems in their normal way do not wait for a time schedule for attention
in such circumstances it should be the obligation of the State which on account of running stone quarries within its area must in various ways be getting benefits to look after these
aspects
As a welfare State it is now the obligation of the State of Haryana to cater to these requirements of the area
546B D 8
In these circumstances the State of Haryana was called upon to attend to the needs of the workmen in a well considered and systematic way
Since those workmen who will be working there have to be protected from the vagaries of employment and the anxiety of the employer to draw work without adequate payments the authorities of the State of Haryana must take care to protect the workmen from the hands of the employer by ensuring compliance with the laws if there he any vacuum in the laws the State of Haryana should rise to play the role of a welfare State and
play it Well
In fact there could be a special cess raised against the quarry activities tobe specifically utilised by way of return to the industry and there could he a Special fundout of which all the amenities could be provided
What is want ing is not power but the mind and alertness regarding one s duty
546E G 528 9
The State of Haryana shall now ensure that the people who have been identified numbering about
2000 are continued in work with the improved conditions of service and facili ties and such of them who want to go back to their native areas be treated as released from bondage and appropriate action must be taken in accordance with Government of In dia s scheme forthwith
547D E Gupta vs Union of India 1982 2 SCR 365 referred to