SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 3185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.
MAKHAN RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CWP No. 19596 of 2014
Decided on : 11-07-2016

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Saurabh Arora, JPS Sidhu, P.S. Dhaliwal, Sunny Singla, Harish Goyal, Ms. Deepika (For Ranjivan Singh), Abhishek Arora, T.P. Singh, A.P. Kaushal (For Navjot Singh), Vikramjeet Singh (For Aman Pal), Saurabh Arora, M.S. Sidhu, Advocates, Gobind Korla (for Sandeep Vermani), Advocates
For the Respondent: L.S. Virk, Addl. A.G, Punjab, APS Mann, Addl. A.G, Punjab, Anshul Gupta, AAG, Punjab, Nilesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab.

The State had the power to modify the policy, and the petitioners did not have a legal vested right to employment.

Headnote:

employment - land acquisition - 1894 Act - 08.11.2011, 28.02.2014, 03.03.2014 - The court disposed of a bunch of 66 cases involving common questions of facts and law. The petitioners challenged the order dated 23.07.2014 rejecting their job applications due to land size. The policy was modified on 28.02.2014 and 03.03.2014 to provide employment to landowners affected by acquisition. The court held that the State had the power to modify the policy and that the petitioners did not have a legal vested right to employment. The court also highlighted the limited scope for interference in public policies and the discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their job applications due to the size of their land holdings, following the modification of the employment policy on 28.02.2014 and 03.03.2014.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State had the power to modify the policy and that the petitioners did not have a legal vested right to employment. The court also highlighted the limited scope for interference in public policies and the discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the State could change and modify the policy to the detriment of the petitioners. 2. Whether the State could change the policy retrospectively, affecting the petitioners' pending applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The State had the power to modify the policy, and the petitioners did not have a legal vested right to employment. The court also highlighted the limited scope for interference in public policies and the discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court granted liberty to petitioners with land holdings more than 4 kanals to challenge the rejection on other grounds by filing appropriate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The present judgment shall dispose of a bunch of 66 cases, details of which are mentioned in Annexure 'A' attached with the judgment, since common questions of facts and law are involved in all the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 19596 of 2014, Makhan Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others.

2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure P-2) whereby, respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Mansa rejected the case of the petitioner no. 44 for grant of job on account of the fact that the quantum of land acquired from him was less than 1 marla. Therefore, as per the guidelines of the Government dated 28.02.2014/03.03.2014 (Annexure P-5), if the land was less than 4 kanals, it was held that the person was not entitled to get the job. In the cases of all other petitioners also, similar orders have been passed and the entitlement to the job has been denied on the account of the lesser land holding than 4 kanals. Resultantly, challenge has also been raised to the decision dated 28.02.2014 taken by the High Level Committee in pursuance of which, the guidelines dated 03.03.2014 were issued on the ground that if big land owners were entitled for appointment, then the petitioners should also be granted the same benefit of getting jobs under Group C and D posts as per their qualifications and as per the earlier policy dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-1).

3. The factual background of the case is that on account of the setting up of the Peona Thermal Power Plant, land to the tune of 882 acres was acquired in five different villages of District Mansa i.e. village Gobindpura, Jalvera, Sirsiwala, Bareta and Dayalpura vide awards dated 25.03.2011 and 24.09.2011. Initially, a policy dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P-1) was floated whereby, public employment was to be given to one member of the family whose land had been acquired for the purpose of the aforesaid thermal plant. In the said policy, Government jobs were to be given for group C and D posts and the eligibility for educational qualification was 10+2. The owner whose land had been acquired, one of his family members was to be given a job and if there was a minor child, then the job was to be given on the completion of the study of the child as per the application of the family. The posts were taken out of the purview of the Punjab Public Service Commission and the Subordinate Service Selection Board. The applications were to be given to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa.

4. As per the respondents, more than 1000 cases were processed and forwarded to the Government and it came to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that persons with ulterior motives had got title of small chunks of land or even in fractions of acquired land through exchange with land just before the notification to avail benefit of employment. An inquiry was got conducted through the District Revenue Officer, Mansa and as per the findings of the inquiry officer, the Deputy Commissioner had written to the Government to initiate action against the Revenue Officers involved in these transactions. Around 400 transactions had happened in the period of less than 6 months of the first notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 1894 Act') i.e. 04.10.2010 for the purposes of getting the undue benefits. In many cases, land size was of few square yards only. Resultantly, a high level meeting was then held on 28.02.2014 under the chairmanship of the Chief Minister, Punjab to ensure that only real land owners whose source of livelihood had been actually affected would get jobs and not non-deserving persons. Accordingly, a decision was taken that all pending cases would be considered and the land owners having land of two acres or more would be eligible for a job. Accordingly, persons having more than 2 acres were held to be eligible for jobs. Under Clause 4 of the fresh guidelines which were issued on 03.03.2014, in cases of exceptional ha






































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top