Supreme Court Directs Appointment Under Evictee Scheme in Unique Employment Dispute

The Supreme Court of India has ruled on a long-standing employment dispute concerning the appointment of Acquilin Rose M. under the Evictee Scheme. The case involved a legal battle between the Union of India and the respondent, who sought employment based on displacement from land acquired by the government.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Kerala’s directive to grant the respondent employment but modified the terms of the appointment. The Court ruled that she should be appointed as a Catering Attendant ‘A’ under Grade ‘C’ instead of the position she sought. However, the Court acknowledged her experience and allowed the employer to utilize her services appropriately.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when Acquilin Rose M. applied for employment under the Evictee Scheme, which provides jobs to individuals who have been displaced due to government projects. The respondent had been working for more than seven years as a Technical Assistant under an outsourcing arrangement and sought a permanent appointment under the scheme.

Initially, the Kerala High Court ruled in her favor and directed the government to appoint her. The Union of India appealed the decision, leading to the present case before the Supreme Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner (Union of India) Arguments

• The respondent was not entitled to a Grade ‘B’ post, as the Evictee Scheme only allowed appointments under Grade ‘C’ or Grade ‘D’ positions.
• Employment under the scheme should follow the prescribed guidelines, and granting a higher post would set an unwarranted precedent.
• The government had already agreed to accommodate her within the available framework.

Respondent (Acquilin Rose M.) Arguments

• The respondent had been working as a Technical Assistant for seven years and should be considered for a more suitable position based on her experience.
• A vacancy was available for a Fitter, a Grade ‘B’ post, and she should be considered for that position.
• Denying her a higher post despite her qualifications and experience would be unfair and contrary to the purpose of the Evictee Scheme.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent but with modifications. The Court observed:

“The learned counsel for the first respondent points out that for more than seven years, the first respondent has been working as a Technical Assistant (though under an outsourcing arrangement) and hence, she may be considered for appointment at least as a Fitter, for which there is a vacancy available. Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel, has brought to our notice that the Fitter is a Grade ‘B’ post and under the Evictee Scheme, what is available is only appointment under either Grade ‘C’ or Grade ‘D’ post.”

The Court directed the government to appoint the respondent as a Catering Attendant ‘A’ in Grade ‘C’. However, it permitted the authorities to use her services in a manner that recognized her experience.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that government employment schemes must adhere to their prescribed framework.
• The Court provided flexibility to the employer to utilize the respondent’s skills beyond the designated role.
• The ruling clarified that exceptional cases could warrant special consideration without setting a general precedent.

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment is significant for employment policies under government rehabilitation schemes. It establishes that while employment schemes must be followed strictly, practical considerations such as work experience can be taken into account. The decision strikes a balance between administrative rules and individual circumstances.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs. Acquilin Rose M. underscores the importance of fairness in employment policies while ensuring that established frameworks are respected. The decision provides clarity on how government schemes should be implemented while recognizing the qualifications and experience of candidates.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Others
Respondent Name: Acquilin Rose M.
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Judgment Date: 13-02-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Union of India & Oth vs Acquilin Rose M. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-02-2018.pdf