Manjit and Ors. vs Union of India and Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

29 January 2021

Case No.

Writ Petition (Civil) No 78 of 2021

Result

Dismissed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Sanjiv Khanna

Citation

[2021] 1 S.C.R. 474 : 2021 INSC 49

Headnote

Service Law:

Largess Scheme – Providing for entry into service for certain wards of serving employees of railways, without undergoing a competitive selection – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 – Seeking direction to the State to appoint the petitioners under the Scheme – Held: The Union Government after revisiting the Scheme, upon direction of the Courts, has terminated the Scheme – The Scheme has rightly been terminated as the same provided for an avenue of back door entry into the service, which was at odds with Art. 16 of the Constitution – The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under the Scheme – All claims based on the Scheme must be closed.

Dismissing the petition, the Court

HELD : A conscious decision has been taken by the Union of India to terminate the Largess Scheme. While taking this decision on 5 March 2019, the Union of India had stated that where wards had completed all formalities prior to 27 October 2017 (the date of termination of the Scheme) and were found fit, since the matter was pending consideration before this Court, further instructions would be issued in accordance with the directions of this Court. Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union Government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed. Therefore, the petition under Article 32 cannot be entertained. [Paras 6 and 7][477-B-D, E]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres; and (b) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The dispute in the present case relates to a scheme, popularly termed as the Larsgess Scheme, which had been adopted by the Railway Administration previously. The Punjab and

View Subscription Plans →