Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a registered society running a boys' hostel for backward class students, applied on 18.09.2010 for transfer of a permanently closed boys' hostel under the Government Resolution dated 16.03.1998. The application remained pending for years. In 2014, the State Government issued a new policy (GR dated 31.10.2014) cancelling all pending individual proposals and requiring fresh applications through advertisement and online mode. Respondent no. 4 rejected the petitioner's proposal via communications dated 28.08.2024 and 04.09.2024, citing the new policy and advising the petitioner to apply afresh. The petitioner challenged these communications by way of a writ petition under Article 226, seeking quashing and a direction to reconsider the proposal under the old policy. The Court held that no applicant has a vested right to have a pending application decided under an old policy once the policy has changed. The decision must be based on the policy in force at the time of decision. The Court found the new policy to be a valid administrative decision aimed at transparency and public interest. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to apply afresh under the new policy if it so desired.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Policy Change - Vested Right - Government Resolution dated 16.03.1998 and 31.10.2014 - The petitioner applied for transfer of a permanently closed hostel under the 1998 policy. Before decision, the State changed policy in 2014 requiring fresh applications through advertisement. The Court held that no vested right accrues from a pending application; the decision must be based on the policy in force at the time of decision. The rejection under the new policy was valid. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review - Policy Decision - The Court declined to interfere with the State's policy decision to cancel pending individual proposals and adopt a transparent online process. The change was held to be in public interest and not arbitrary. (Paras 11-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner has a vested right to have its pending application for transfer of a permanently closed hostel considered under the policy prevailing at the time of application, despite a subsequent change in policy.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The impugned communications are upheld. The petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh under the policy brought into effect by Government Resolution dated 31.10.2014.
Law Points
- Policy change
- vested right
- pending application
- Government Resolution
- administrative law
- legitimate expectation
