JUDGMENT :

K. Vinod Chandran, C.J.

The clamour for a job, in lieu of acquisition of land, in addition to the monetary compensation, is the issue agitated in the above appeals. The petitioners assert that they have lost their lands in the acquisition carried out by the Railways, for the purpose of laying railway lines. Petitioners also rely on a policy of the Railways to claim jobs for each of them, being a member of the displaced families. The Railways had delayed the consideration and when some persons were granted the benefit, others were denied the same. The learned Single Judge directed not only consideration of the candidature of the petitioners, but also required offers of appointment to be made, effective from the date similarly situated persons were appointed. The petitioners were to be granted continuity of service from that date and salary was directed to be fixed notionally; the actual salary being paid from the date of joining.

2. The learned Senior Counsel, Dr. K.N. Singh appeared for the Railways and assailed the impugned judgment. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the lands of the petitioners were acquired under three different projects; the north side of Ganga Bridge, extension of Ganga Bridge and the Hajipur-Sugauli Railway Line. Expect for the first project, there was no stipulation of a job, in addition to the monetary compensation. The date of acquisition was between 2002 to 2003 and as per the guidelines issued, produced along with the writ petition, the jobs were to be given only if the land acquired deprived the family of its livelihood and the member of the family projected for recruitment has the requisite qualification. The recruitment had to be made in the course of the general recruitment with only a preferential weightage given to such candidates. There can be no appointment directly to the posts in the Railways which would violate the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such appointment could also be made only within two years or in the first recruitment after the acquisition, whichever is later.

3. Insofar as the north side of Ganga Bridge, the acquisitions were made in the year 2003, many were given jobs in the first recruitment and there cannot be any claim raised by the others at this late stage. Insofar as the extension of Ganga Bridge and Hajipur-Sugauli Railway line, there was no stipulation that one member of the family of the land owner would be given employment. As far as the Hajipur-Sugauli stretch is concerned, in 2011 a policy was framed wherein 92 persons were given exemption due to the hardship urged, by reason of the State’s delay in making recommendation. As of now, there is no policy in existence to grant jobs. The deprivation of livelihood claimed at this late stage cannot be compensated by the State.

4. The learned Senior Counsel would summarize that there were three different schemes and only one had the stipulation for a job in lieu of acquisition of land. All the claims were considered and when some persons were granted, the others were rejected on valid grounds, which rejection was based on their ineligibility which cannot lead to any ground of discrimination. As of now, appointment can be made only to Group D and prescribed qualification is mandatory. There can be no appointment without a recruitment and the provision is only for preferential weightage. The only compensation payable as per law, is monetary in nature and wherever a job is provided, it is hemmed in with certain conditions of immediate appointment at the first available recruitment and the candidate being otherwise qualified, which conditions even if fulfilled there could only be a weightage granted. There is gross delay in making the applications and the jurisdiction in any event is with the Central Administrative Tribunal. There can be no promissory estoppel based on a policy which was designed on a rough estimate of providing jobs for around thousand persons which now stands at