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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 566

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suresh Kumar Batra, J, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, A
Rajinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 60/1023/2017



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amrindera Pratap Singh, Mr. Gurnam Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Swati Arora

The principle of fair inclusion in employment policies must be upheld, particularly in cases involving welfare schemes for land losers, despite technical qualifications.

Headnote:The applicant sought relief under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the rejection of his candidature for a Class IV post on preferential treatment basis due to the death of his elder brother. The court found that the decision to reject was arbitrary and discriminatory, noting the welfare policy for land losers. The main issue was whether the applicant's educational qualifications were sufficient, and the court highlighted the lack of a fair treatment in applying selection criteria. The impugned order was quashed, and the applicant was directed to be appointed as per the scheme.

Table of Content
1. application submitted for job post after brother's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding educational qualifications and cut-off dates. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's examination of policy's applicability and fairness. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. highlighting discriminatory practices in recruitment. (Para 17)
5. quashing of the impugned order and directive for appointment. (Para 21)

ORDER

PER: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) Quash the order dated 24.01.2019 (Annexure A-17) passed by the respondent authorities vide which the candidature of the applicant for recruitment to Class IV post on preferential treatment basis, has been rejected.

ii) Directions may kindly be issued to respondent authorities to consider the applicant for employment as Class IV employee on preferential treatment basis in pursuance of one job per family (Welfare Policy) formulated by the Ministry of Railways w.e.f. the date similarly situated persons were given appointment letters by the respondent authorities pursuant to the above mentioned policy i.e., (March/April 2014), alongwith all consequential service benefits.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Government of Punjab issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.02.1981 for acquiring land for Diesel Locomotive Component Factory and its residential colony. Total land including the land of the applicant measuring 220-30 acres situated within the revenue estate of village-Alipur Arian, Tehsil and District Patiala was sought to be acquired. The said notification was followed by another notification under Section 6 of the same Act on 28.05.1981. The Collector Land Acquisition, Industry Department, Punjab prepared the statement showing the detail of enhanced compensation, enhanced by the District Court Patiala vide judgment dated 02.08.1985.

3. The Government of India, Ministry of Railways framed the policy for giving job to the members of the family who lost their holdings. Some members of the displaced families of village Alipur Arian were given suitable job in DCW depending upon their qualification. In the year 1997, the issue of appointment of land loser, was raised before the Parliament and as consequence thereof, Ministry of Railway decided that the process be undertaken again in respect of the candidate for recruitment in the DCW by giving preferential treatment. Accordingly, applications were invited from the members of the families who lost their lands, for recruitment in the DCW. As many as 85 candidates submitted their applications for recruitment in the DCW. Claim of 34 candidates including Ram Singh brother of the applicant were finalized for recruitment as Class IV employee. When the name of Ram Singh, son of Roor Singh and brother of the applicant was being considered for class IV post in DCW, he met with a road accident and unfortunately died on 14.03.2011.

4. Before the recruitment of candidates on policy decision of Department of Railway could be made, the applicant (Rajinder Singh), who is younger son of Roor Singh submitted his application to the competent authority with a request that his elder brother Ram Singh has died and he (the applicant) be considered for recruitment in DCW.

5. The Senior Personnel Officer of DCW wrote a letter to the applicant on 12.02.2014, asking him to appear before the recruitment committee on 26.02.2014 along with other candidates, whose names were short listed. A similar letter was written to Jabarjang Singh s/o Gumam Singh and Mangat Singh son of Suba Singh of the same village. In pursuance of the screening conducted on 26.02.2014, by the Screening Committee, the aforesaid two candidates, i.e., Jabarjung Singh and Mangat Singh, who were similar situated were issued appointment letters for the post of Safaiwala in the pay scale

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top