Civil Writ Petition No.11175 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: July 29, 2009 Pawan Kumar .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Anurag Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner, who is working as Lecturer in Electronics Engineering, has approached this court seeking direction for the respondents to grant him permission for acquiring higher qualification of M.Tech (Part-time), which has been refused. Initially appointed as Workshop Instructor, the petitioner acquired qualification of B.Tech after grant of proper sanction for doing this course under the sponsorship to undergo long term training. It is thereafter that the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer. Civil Writ Petition No.11175 of 2009 : 2 : On 28.5.2006, the petitioner was given permission for acquiring higher qualification of M.Tech from Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College. He, however, could not pursue the course because of some family circumstances. He again applied for permission for doing this course at Singhania University. Respondent No.2, however, declined approval on the ground that Singhania University had not been approved by All India Council of Technical Education (for short “AICTE”). Without awaiting for permission, the petitioner seems to have obtained admission during August, 2008 subject to grant of permission. In response to the query made by the petitioner on the asking of respondents, Singhania University has informed that it does not require approval of AICTE. Ultimately, after exchange of correspondence, the prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on 2.6.2009. The petitioner has, thus, challenged this rejection through the present writ petition. At the very outset, the counsel was asked to satisfy the court whether the issue raised by him in the petition would be justiciable. The counsel is also required to address the court if he has any right legal or constitutional to acquire higher qualification which if denied can be enforced through writ petition. Even after taking time, the petitioner could not make any argument that he has any legal right, the enforcement of which he could seek through writ court. The counsel, however, makes some reference to the Rules. and certain administrative instructions issued pursuant thereto, to say that these can be enforced through the present writ petition. The administrative instructions or any administrative manual cannot have any statutory force which could be enforced through a writ petition. In exercise of Civil Writ Petition No.11175 of 2009 : 3 : its power of judicial review, the courts cannot interfere with matter of policy. The court cannot even interfere with legislative or executive policies so long as no provision of the Constitution is violated by the action taken. Since the petitioner has not been able to show if he would have a right or fundamental right to pursue his higher studies, the denial thereof may not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. Otherwise also, there is no arbitrariness in the action as the rejection is primarily on the ground that the University from where the petitioner wants to acquire his higher qualification is not recognised by AICTE. There is, thus, no ground made out to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. July 29, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE