Rehabilitation – Of land oustees, whose lands were acquired for Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project – Railway Board formulated policy for offering employment to persons displaced by the acquisition of land for railway projects – Employment notice for recruitment of Gangmen in Group ‘D’ posts in the Engineering Department of the Sambalpur Division – O.As filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench by displaced persons – Tribunal found fault with the Railway for initiating selection process for filling up 511 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, holding that recourse to direct recruitment was not justified without accommodating all the land oustees and observed that it would be enough if they are found suitable for the post by recruitment committee – Affirmed by the High Court – On appeal, held: Though the policy of the Railway Board provided for the grant of preferential treatment to the land oustees, this was subject to the fulfillment of all other terms and conditions – View of the Tribunal that the land oustees were not required to undergo the process of selection, not accepted – Tribunal exceeded its adjudicatory authority by substituting its own directions for the policy – Out of 9,036 families which were covered by the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project, 2,805 persons applied for employment – Applications of 2,153 land oustees were rejected – Inter alia the reasons for rejection were insufficient proof of being land losers in the land acquisition – It would be extremely technical to reject the applications without sufficient opportunity to the land oustees to comply with the terms and conditions, including the submission of proof of being land oustees – Policy contemplated that as land acquisition is done through the civil authorities, the village sarpanch/tehsildar should be associated with the verification of the claim of the oustees – Placing the entire burden on the land oustees would result in deprivation of the benefit of the policy – Judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal set aside – Notwithstanding the rejection of the claims of 2,153 land oustees, steps be taken for re-verification of the claims of persons rejected – Applications submitted be reconsidered as against the 82 vacancies (out of 511 vacancies, 429 posts were filled) and in addition, against any other vacancies that may presently exist in respect of the Sambalpur Division and those which may arise in the next two years. Lands were acquired between 1984-85 and 1992-93 for Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project. The Railway Board formulated policy for offering employment to persons displaced by the acquisition of land for railway projects. Employment notice for recruitment of Gangmen in Group ‘D’ posts in the Engineering Department of the Sambalpur Division. Land oustess of the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project allowed to apply, if otherwise eligible. O.As were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench by the displaced persons. The Tribunal found fault with the Railway for initiating selection process for filling up 511 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, holding that recourse to direct recruitment was not justified without accommodating all the land oustees and observed that it would be enough if they are found suitable for the post by recruitment committee. In challenge by the Union of India, the High Court affirmed the said decision. Hence, the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The policy of the Railway Board envisaged that appointments are to be made only on the fulfillment of the conditions specified in the instructions (Clause 1 of the letter dated 8 December 1989). The instructions stipulated that the dispensation to give preferential treatment to land oustees in employment is to be limited to recruitments made from outside in direct recruitment categories, subject to the terms and conditions stipulated. The instructions also stipulated that candidates must fulfill the qualifications for the post and should be found suitable by the appropriate recruitment committees. In view of the terms and conditions, stipulated in the relevant instructions and circulars, it is not possible to accede to the view of the Tribunal that the land oustees are not required to undergo the process of selection. Though the instructions provided for the grant of preferential treatment, this was subject to the fulfillment of all other terms and conditions, stipulated in the instructions. While laying down a policy for preferential treatment, the Union Government was entitled to stipulate the conditions subject to which a claim for appointment in Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts for the land oustees could be considered. The Tribunal exceeded the limits of its adjudicatory authority by virtually substituting its own directions for the policy which was formulated by the Union Government. Such an exercise, by its very nature, is impermissible. The terms on which a policy of offering employment to the land oustees should be framed is a matter to be decided by the Ministry of Railways. Once this exercise has been carried out, it was neither appropriate nor proper for the Tribunal to trench upon that area. Out of 9,036 families which were covered by the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project, 2,805 persons had applied for employment. 652 persons were shortlisted, out of whom 553 persons appeared for the written test. 110 persons cleared the written test, out of whom
76 were offered employment. 66 persons joined service. [Paras 18-20] [480-G-H; 481-A-E]
1.2 It would be extremely technical to reject the applications without sufficient opportunity to the land oustees to comply with the terms and conditions, including the submission of proof of being land oustees. As a matter of fact, the policy which has been formulated by the Ministry of Railways contemplated that as land acquisition is done through the civil authorities, the village sarpanch or tehsildar should be associated with the verification of the claim of the oustees. Placing the entire burden on the land oustees would result in a deprivation of the benefit of the policy. Having laid down a salutary policy, it is necessary that the Ministry of Railways must coordinate its activities with the local administration so as to ensure due verification of the claims made by the applicants. Notwithstanding the earlier rejection of the claims of 2,153 land oustees, steps should be taken for re-verification of all the claims of persons who were rejected in the past. Sufficient opportunity shall be granted to them to submit applications afresh along with requisite certificates. Fresh applications be called within a period of three months. An advertisement shall be issued for that purpose with due publicity in the area. The applications submitted in pursuance to the advertisement by land oustees of the Sambalpur-Talcher Link Rail Project shall be reconsidered as against the 82 vacancies and in addition thereto, against any other vacancies that may presently exist in respect of the Sambalpur Division and those which may arise in the next two years. The selection process shall be completed within the next six months. [Paras 22, 23] [482-B-G]
1.3 Applicants would be entitled to an age relaxation of 15 years. The applications of other land oustees apart from 2,153 land oustees reflected in the tabulated chart shall also be duly considered by the Divisional Manager. However, applicants would be required to fulfill all other prescriptions, including educational qualifications, appearing at the written test, minimum age requirements and medical fitness. The written test shall be held exclusively for the applicants from among the land oustees. It is clarified that there shall be no displacement of the candidates who were appointed in the process of direct recruitment. The judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside. [Paras 24, 25] [482-G-H; 483-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.