UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP ETC.ETC.

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 14-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
           SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP ETC.ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3030-3044 of 2019)
MARCH 14, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
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
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 471
 471
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
instructions and circulars, it is not possible to acc

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