MANJIT AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 474 · Decided: 29-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 474
474
MANJIT AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 78 of 2021)
JANUARY 29, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,
INDIRA BANERJEE AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
475
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]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION :  Writ Petition (Civil) No.
78 of 2021.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Anupam Bhati, Ms.
Malvika Raghavan, Nakul Chaudhary, H.S. Mann, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
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 Haryana High Court passed
orders on 27 April 2016 and 14 July 2017 requiring the Union of India to
reconsider the Scheme. The orders of the High Court were evidently
based on the fact that the Scheme provided for an entry into service for
certain wards of serving employees without undergoing a competitive
selection consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. On 8 January 2018, in SLP (C) No 508 of 2018, arising
from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
dated 14 July 2017 in RP No 330 of 2017, this Court directed the Union
of India to take a conscious decision within a period of six weeks . The
order dated 8 January 2018 was in the following terms:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Delay condoned.
MANJIT AND ORS.  v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Since the direction in the impugned order is only to re-visit the
Scheme in question, no interference is called for at this stage.
The petitioner(s) may take a conscious decision in the matter within
a period of six weeks from today. If any party is affected by the
decision taken, such party may take remedy against the same in
accordance with law.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), including application for intervention, shall
also stand disposed of.”
3. On 5 March 2019, the Union of India took a decision to terminate
the Scheme. The decision of the Union of India was noticed in an order
dated 6 March 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.