IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.536 of 2006 Decided on:August 2, 2006 Sunrise Education Society .....Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. & Ors. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms.Suman Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Advocate General with Mr. J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Gupta, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioner’s limited grievance is that whereas the petitioner has been permitted to opt for any of the existing or newly introduced courses in Table-A and Table-B, courses appearing at Sr.Nos.1 to 3 as well as courses of Para Medical nature appearing at Sr.Nos.4 to 6 of Table-C have been restricted to existing Vocational Training Centres and the respondents have not permitted the new Vocational Training Centres, like that of the petitioner, to opt for any of the two courses in Table-C. The stand of the respondents in its reply is that as far as the courses in Table-C are concerned, there is already an over crowding of candidates in these courses and the job 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? ...2... potentials relating to these courses are also diminishing gradually and because of these two reasons the new VTCs are not being allowed to take up these courses. 2. After hearing detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we feel disinclined to accept the aforesaid explanation of the respondents. 3. If an entrepreneur, like the petitioner in the present case, decides to set up a new VTC, he does so with full realization and knowledge about the viability of the project as well as taking into consideration its future prospects. It is undisputed that the petitioner is not asking for any largesse from the State Government. The petitioner has set up the Institution entirely at his own, it being funded totally by itself, without any aid or financial assistance from the State Government. Whether the petitioner in its enterprise loses or gains is for the petitioner to decide. Therefore, whether there is any overcrowding in some specified Courses or there is no overcrowding is a consideration for the new VTC to decide about. If therefore, despite the overcrowding the new entrepreneur opts for specified courses, it should be doing so at its risk and responsibility. The State Government, of course, cannot be held responsible for adverse repercussion in that behalf. 4. In so far as the State’s contention that the courses appearing in Table-C have lost job potential or prospects of job potential have diminished, this is an aspect which is left best to be decided by the candidates opting for the particular courses. Let the ...3... candidates themselves decide as to which courses they should opt for. Let the State not interfere in these purely private matters of the candidates. 5. Having said that we must hasten to add that State must perform its duty of ensuring that the Institutions meet and conform with all prescribed parameters as well as quality control, norms and that no Institution is allowed to start any course or to substitute any course unless it has in place necessary infrastructure for setting it up. 6. Petition allowed. The respondents are directed to ensure that the petitioner, if it meets with all the above referred requirements as well as conforms to all laid down norms and parameters is allowed to take up any of the two courses whether these find mention in Table-A, Table-B or Table-C. CMP No.885 of 2006: Infructuous. ( V.K. Gupta ) Chief Justice. ( Surjit Singh ) August 2, 2006(soni) Judge.