https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173914 The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Cabinet decision without it being specifically challenged in the writ petition. The Court emphasized the State's authority to frame policies, especially in technical education. It rejected the claim of 'legitimate expectation,' stating that institutions do not have an indefinite right to run specific courses. The High Court's procedural error in quashing the Cabinet decision without allowing both parties to present their stand led to the Supreme Court setting aside the order and permitting fresh challenges if desired, with the State entitled to justify policy changes. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 09:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173914 The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the Cabinet decision without it being specifically challenged in the writ petition. The Court emphasized the State's authority to frame policies, especially in technical education. It rejected the claim of 'legitimate expectation,' stating that institutions do not have an indefinite right to run specific courses. The High Court's procedural error in quashing the Cabinet decision without allowing both parties to present their stand led to the Supreme Court setting aside the order and permitting fresh challenges if desired, with the State entitled to justify policy changes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173914