Decisions cannot be arbitrary
1. Decisions cannot be arbitrary
Gujarat High court in Bharatsigh vs State on 8 May, 2012
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/53026791/
held that
State cannot claim that the said teachers should rest contend with the opportunity which is given and even if any action or provision is bad in law then also they should not and cannot make any grievance. Once entry is permitted then Article 14 will come in picture and the right to oppose any action or provision which appears arbitrary, discriminatory or bad in law, can not be denied. It is another matter that the objection may not be good on merits and may not be accepted.
…
The supreme court of India, in Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs International Trading Co. And ... on 7 May, 2003
Held that
15. It is (SIC) law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.
16. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Art.14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Art. 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Art. 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heart beat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.
17. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to act in different manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable itself shall be labelled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary."