Supreme Court Orders Reconsideration of Employment for Railway Land Oustees

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Shankar Prasad Deep & Ors., concerning the rehabilitation and employment policies for land oustees whose lands were acquired for railway projects. The case involved displaced persons from the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project, where thousands of families lost their lands between 1984-85 and 1992-93. This ruling highlights key legal aspects related to employment opportunities for land oustees and the obligations of the government under existing policies.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when the Indian Railways acquired extensive land for the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project. The Union Government, through the Ministry of Railways, introduced policies to ensure the rehabilitation of displaced persons by offering employment opportunities to affected families. The guidelines issued over the years established the criteria and process for land oustees to be considered for employment.

The Railway Board’s Policy on November 24, 1987, provided for preferential treatment in employment under the following conditions:

One member per displaced family was eligible for employment.
Employment was limited to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts.
Eligibility for employment had to be exercised within two years of land acquisition.
The candidate had to meet the required educational and suitability criteria.

Subsequent circulars in November 1989 and December 1989 reiterated these policies, detailing procedures for recruiting eligible candidates.

Legal Battle Begins

Despite these policies, a large number of land oustees claimed they had not been provided employment. A group of affected individuals approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, challenging the recruitment process. They argued that even though 511 vacancies existed, the Railway Administration had failed to prioritize land oustees and instead recruited ‘outsiders.’

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the displaced individuals and directed the Railway Administration to provide them employment. The Tribunal held that:

Land oustees who met the eligibility criteria should be appointed without undergoing a competitive examination.
The Railway Administration had wrongfully prioritized non-displaced individuals in recruitment.
The government was obligated to follow its own policy and provide fair employment opportunities.

The Union of India challenged this decision before the Orissa High Court, which upheld the Tribunal’s ruling. The High Court observed that out of 511 vacancies, 508 were filled by outsiders, disregarding the Railway’s own policy to prioritize displaced persons.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Union of India)

The Union of India, representing the Railway Administration, presented the following arguments:

The figures presented by the Tribunal and the High Court were incorrect.
Preferential treatment was given to land oustees, but they had to meet the required qualifications.
The Tribunal had overstepped its jurisdiction by altering government policy.

Arguments by the Respondents (Land Oustees)

The displaced individuals contended that:

The Railway Administration failed to implement the employment policy properly.
Most of the 511 vacancies were filled by individuals who were not land oustees.
They should be appointed without having to undergo written tests or selection procedures.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court sought a detailed assessment of the employment status of land oustees. The data submitted by the government showed:

9,036 families were affected.
2,805 individuals applied for employment.
652 applicants were shortlisted, but only 553 appeared for the test.
110 candidates cleared the test, and 76 were offered jobs.
66 individuals accepted employment, while 7 did not report, and 3 were medically unfit.

Additionally, 2,153 applications were rejected for various reasons, including:

1,831 individuals failed to submit land acquisition certificates.
215 provided insufficient proof of being land oustees.
40 did not meet the minimum qualifications.
31 submitted incomplete applications.
14 were overaged, while 13 were underaged.
7 failed to provide attested photographs.
2 did not submit caste certificates.

The Supreme Court noted that rejecting applicants for minor deficiencies was highly technical and unfair. The Court stated:

“It would be extremely technical to reject applications without giving sufficient opportunity to the land oustees to comply with submission requirements.”

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court but ruled that the rejected applicants should be given another opportunity. It directed the Railway Administration to:

Issue fresh advertisements inviting applications from previously rejected land oustees.
Ensure better coordination with local authorities for verification.
Reserve the 82 unfilled vacancies for displaced persons.
Grant a 15-year age relaxation for eligible candidates.

The Court also ordered that the recruitment process should be completed within six months and must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a landmark decision ensuring fair treatment for land oustees. It reinforces the principle that displaced persons should not be denied opportunities due to technical lapses and procedural inefficiencies. The ruling mandates proper implementation of rehabilitation policies, ensuring that affected individuals receive their rightful employment opportunities.

Petitioner Name: Union of India & Ors..
Respondent Name: Shankar Prasad Deep & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Odisha.
Judgment Date: 14-03-2019.

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 & Ors vs Shankar Prasad Deep Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-03-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category