Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 405

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP ETC.ETC. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3030-3044 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.696-710 of 2011)
Decided on : 14-03-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, Ms. V. Mohana, Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Mr. R.B. Yadav, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, adv
For the Respondent: Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Mr. Amit Yadav, Mr. Kaushal Navoyan Mishra, Mr. A.P. Mayee, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Robin Khokhar, Mr. B.N. Dubey, Mr. P. Dayal, Ms. Ritu Renitval, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Ms. Nidhi, Mr. Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Poga Kabra, Ms. Maithili Shubhangi, Mr. Shibashish Misra, Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Mr. Somanatha Padhan, Mr. Ashok Anand, for Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Railways while giving preferential treatment to land oustees were entitled to impose terms and conditions.
Tribunal could not virtually substitute its own directions for the policy formulated by Railways.
Applications of oustees should not have been rejected on technical grounds. They should have been given opportunity to comply with terms and conditions.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Recruitment – Land oustees by Railways – Instructions for preference to oustees subject to the fulfillment of all other terms and conditions – Tribunal holding that by virtue of preferential treatment oustees were not required to undergo process of selection – Held impermissible – Railways were entitled to impose terms and conditions – Tribunal could not virtually substitute its own directions for the policy formulated by Railways – Directions od Tribunal held impermissible. (Para 19)
       (b) Service law – Recruitment – Land oustees by Railways – Applications of rejected on technical grounds without giving sufficient opportunity to comply with terms and conditions – Village sarpanch or tehsildar not associated for verification of oustees as required by policy of Railways – Such rejection set aside – Directions given. (Para 22, 23)
       Facts of the case:
       A batch of Original Applications were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal by persons displaced by acquisition of their lands by Railways. The Tribunal issued a slew of directions to ensure the rehabilitation of land oustees. The Tribunal found fault with the Railway Administration for initiating a selection process for filling up 511 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, holding that recourse to direct recruitment was not justified without accommodating all the land oustees.
       The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the view of the Tribunal.
       Finding of the Court:
       Directions given by Tribunal are impermissible.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The issue in the present appeals pertains to the rehabilitation of land oustees, whose lands were acquired between 1984-85 and 1992-93 for the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project.

3. The Union Government in the Ministry of Railways formulated certain policies on which the claim in the present appeals rests.

4. On 24 November 1987, the Railway Board formulated a policy in the context of its earlier decisions, and laid down guidelines for offering employment to persons displaced by the acquisition of land for railway projects. The letter dated 24 November 1987 stipulated that:

“(2) The Zonal Railway and Production Units and also project authorities may consider applications received from persons displaced on account of large-scale acquisition of land for projects on the Railways for employment of the displaced person, or his son/daughter or wife for employment in Group ‘C’ or Group IV posts in their organization including engagement of casual labour and give them preferential treatment for such employment, subject to the following conditions:
1. the individual concerned should have been displaced himself or he should be the son/daughter/ward/wife of a person displaced from land on account of acquisition of the land by the Railways for the project.
2. Only one job on such preferential treatment should be offered to one family.
3. This dispensation should be limited to recruitments made from outside in direct recruitment categories and to the first recruitment or within a period of two years after the acquisition of the land, whichever is later.
4. It must also be ensured that the displaced persons did not derive any benefit through the State Government in the form of alternative cultivable land etc.

5. The person concerned should fulfill the qualifications for the post in question and also be found suitable by the appropriate recruitment Committees. In the case of group ‘C’ posts for which recruitment is made through the Railways Service Commission, the Chairman or the Member of the Railways Service Commission should be associated in the recruitment.”

5. The Railway Board issued another circular on 10 November 1989 [No.E(NG)II/89/RC-2/38]. The subject of the circular was:

“Appointment to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts on the Railways of members of families displaced as a result of acquisition of land for establishment of projects.”

6. The circular laid down modalities for inviting applications from eligible persons belonging to families which were displaced as a result of the acquisition of land.

7. On 8 December 1989, the Railway Board issued another letter stipulating the procedure to be followed to implement the policy of offering appointment in Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts in the Railways to one member of every family displaced as a result of acquisition. The circular, inter alia, contains the following stipulations:

“3. Incidentally, as already clarified in the aforesaid instructions, not more than one job for one family can be given, even if the other conditions are satisfied. Further, once an offer of appointment has been made, in no case should any further application claiming appointment on ground of acquisition of the same piece of land for railway project, be entertained. All the applications received should be properly registered in a register and the final disposal also indicated to keep a proper check.”

8. The present dispute originates in a batch of Original Applications which were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal at its Cuttack Bench by persons displaced by acquisition of their lands. The Tribunal, by its decision dated 20 February 2002, issued a slew of directions to ensure the rehabilitation of land oustees. The Tribunal found fault with the Railway Administration for initiating a selection process for filling up 511 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, ho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday