The main legal point established is that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot override public interest and fair and reasonable actions by public sector undertakings.

(Prayer in W.A.No.337 of 2003: Writ Appeal against the order dated 09.12.2002 made in W.P.No.4220 of 2000.)

Common Judgment

D. Murugesan, J.

The appellant company is a Government of India undertaking functioning under the administrative control of Department of Atomic Energy and is in the process of separating strategic minerals like Zircon, Monazite, Ilmenite, Rutile, Garnet etc., For expansion of its mining activities in Manavalakurichi area, the appellant company required a large extent of land and accordingly, lands admeasuring about 40.072 HA were acquired by the Government of Tamil Nadu and possession of the land was also handed over to the appellant company during the year 1990-1991. The land owners were paid adequate compensation. The land owners/displaced persons approached this Court by way of writ petitions seeking for a direction to the appellant company to fulfil the promises by providing suitable employment to one member of each family as they were dispossessed of their lands by the acquisition proceedings. The writ petitions were laid only on the ground that in the award enquiry, the Manager of the appellant Company had promised before the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, that one member from each family of the individuals, whose lands were acquired, would be given employment in the appellant company. In view of such promise, the appellant Company is estopped from denying such benefit.

2. By a common order dated 09.12.2002, the writ petitions were allowed with a direction to provide appointment to one member of each of the displaced families. It was also directed that till such time, such appointments are made, the appellant company should not make any appointment to class 3 and 4 posts or other lower class or menial posts. Based upon the above direction, other consequential directions were also issued.

3. Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the appellant company, being a public sector undertaking directly controlled by the Department of Atomic Energy, cannot make any appointments contrary to the rules. No scheme was framed for employment of the family members, whose lands were acquired. He would submit that the land owners have been paid the compensation for the lands and in such event, they cannot compel the appellant company to provide employment. He would also submit that the decision to provide employment shall be taken at the level of Board, and the promise given by Manager of the Company during the award enquiry, is not binding on the Company. Consequently, estoppel could be pleaded against the Company.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents/writ petitioners would contend that inasmuch as the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.324 Revenue Department dated 18.03.1986 directing all public sector undertakings to recruit without reference to the employment exchange at least one member of each family, who were displaced on account of acquisition of lands for any project and in view of the said G.O., the writ petitioners are entitled to succeed. He would also submit that having assured employment to the members of the displaced families at the time of the award enquiry, the appellant company is estopped from going back on the promise.

5. Insofar as the first contention as to the G.O. is concerned, it is to be seen that the said G.O. is only an administrative instruction and it cannot be held to be mandatory compelling the appellant to provide employment at least to one member of each family, whose lands were acquired. The appellant company is admittedly a public sector undertaking, directly coming under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy and the recruitment shall be made only in accordance with the rules. Our attention was not drawn by the land owners that as per the rules, the displaced persons/erstwhile land owners are entitled to seek for employment. Of course, the provision for such