1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3030-3044 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.696-710 of 2011)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP ETC.ETC. RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J

Leave granted.

The  issue  in  the  present  appeals  pertains  to  the

rehabilitation of land oustees, whose lands were acquired

between  1984-85  and  1992-93  for  the  Sambalpur-Talcher

Rail Link Project.   

The  Union  Government  in  the  Ministry  of  Railways

formulated certain policies on which the claim in the

present appeals rests.   

On 24 November 1987, the Railway Board formulated a

policy in the context of its earlier decisions, and laid

down  guidelines  for  offering  employment  to  persons

displaced  by  the  acquisition  of  land  for  railway

projects.  The letter dated 24 November 1987 stipulated

that:

“(2) The Zonal Railway and Production Units and also  project  authorities  may  consider applications received from persons displaced on account of large-scale acquisition of land for

2

projects on the Railways for employment of the displaced person, or his son/daughter or wife for employment  in  Group  ‘C’  or  Group  IV  posts  in their organization including engagement of casual labour and give them preferential treatment for such  employment,  subject  to  the  following conditions:

1. the  individual  concerned  should  have been displaced himself or he should be the son/daughter/ward/wife of a person displaced from land on account of acquisition of the land by the Railways for the project.

2. Only  one  job  on  such  preferential treatment should be offered to one family.

3. This dispensation should be limited to recruitments  made  from  outside  in  direct recruitment  categories  and  to  the  first recruitment or within a period of two years after the acquisition of the land, whichever is later.

4. It  must  also  be  ensured  that  the displaced persons did not derive any benefit through the State Government in the form of alternative cultivable land etc.

5. The person concerned should fulfill the qualifications for the post in question and also be found suitable by the appropriate recruitment  Committees.   In  the  case  of group  ‘C’  posts  for  which  recruitment  is made  through  the  Railways  Service Commission, the Chairman or the Member of the  Railways  Service  Commission  should  be associated in the recruitment.”

The  Railway  Board  issued  another  circular  on  10

November 19891.  The subject of the circular was:

“Appointment to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts on the Railways of members of families displaced as a result of acquisition of land for establishment of projects.”

1  No.E(NG)II/89/RC-2/38

3

The  circular  laid  down  modalities  for  inviting

applications from eligible persons belonging to families

which were displaced as a result of the acquisition of

land.

On 8 December 1989, the Railway Board issued another

letter  stipulating  the  procedure  to  be  followed  to

implement the policy of offering appointment in Group ‘C’

and Group ‘D’ posts in the Railways to one member of

every family displaced as a result of acquisition.  The

circular,  inter  alia,  contains  the  following

stipulations:

“3. Incidentally,  as  already  clarified  in  the aforesaid instructions, not more than one job for one  family  can  be  given,  even  if  the  other conditions are satisfied.  Further, once an offer of appointment has been made, in no case should any further application claiming appointment on ground of acquisition of the same piece of land for railway project, be entertained.  All the applications  received  should  be  properly registered in a register and the final disposal also indicated to keep a proper check.”

The present dispute originates in a batch of Original

Applications  which  were  filed  before  the  Central

Administrative Tribunal at its Cuttack Bench by persons

displaced by acquisition of their lands.  The Tribunal,

by its decision dated 20 February 2002, issued a slew of

directions to ensure the rehabilitation of land oustees.

The Tribunal found fault with the Railway Administration

for initiating a selection process for filling up 511

vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, holding that recourse to

4

direct  recruitment  was  not  justified  without

accommodating  all  the  land  oustees.   The  Tribunal

observed that those of the land oustees who had applied

and were found to fulfill the educational qualifications

and  age  requirement  will  not  have  to  undergo  the

selection procedure stipulated in the employment notice

issued on 31 July 1998.  Instead, the Tribunal observed

that it would be enough if they are found suitable for

the post by recruitment committee.

The decision of the Tribunal was questioned by the

Union of India before the High Court of Orissa in O.J.C.

No.6156 of 2002.  The High Court observed that the policy

of  the  Union  Government  in  the  Ministry  of  Railways

stipulated  that  one  job  should  be  offered  on  a

preferential basis to a member of the affected family.

The High Court held that out of 511 vacancies, as many as

508 had been filled up by ‘outsiders’ other than land

oustees  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  except  for  three

persons, no job was offered to any of the family members.

On  this  reasoning,  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  Writ

Petition and affirmed the view of the Tribunal.   

Assailing the decision of the High Court, the Union

of India is in appeal before this Court.

During  the  course  of  the  hearing,  Mr.  A.N.S.

Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor General of India,

assailed the judgments of the Tribunal and of the High

Court  on  the  ground  that  the  figures  which  had  been

5

reflected in these judgments were erroneous.

In  view  of  the  submissions  which  were  addressed

before this Court, the following order was passed on 14

February 2019:

“In  order  to  enable  the  Court  to  have  a comprehensive  assessment  of  the  situation,  we have  requested  Mr.  A.N.S.  Nadkarni,  learned Additional Solicitor General of India to provide the following details:-  

(i)  The  total  number  of  families  which  were covered  under  the  Sambalpur-Talcher  Rail  Link Project;

(ii)  The  number  of  persons  from  amongst  the affected families who had applied for employment;

(iii)  The  number  of  persons  from  amongst  the affected group who appeared for the written test;

(iv)  The  number  of  persons  who  cleared  the written test amongst the above group;

(v) The number of persons who have been actually engaged  by  the  Railway  Administration  from amongst the group of oustees; and

(vi) The grounds on which those who could not be accommodated were rejected.

This  Court  shall  also  be  apprised  of  how many of the remaining persons meet the minimum qualifications  and  job  description  (other  than the  age  requirement)  as  stipulated  in  the advertisement dated 31 July 1998 (Annexure P-4).  This  exercise  shall  be  carried  out  and  an additional affidavit shall be filed before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to the learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  contesting parties.”  

In pursuance of the above directions, an additional

affidavit has been filed by the appellants, through the

Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast Railway,

Sambalpur Division, Odisha.

6

The  affidavit  contains  the  following  tabulated

statement:

“S.No. Details  sought  by  this Hon’ble Court

Particulars

(i) Total  number  of  families which  were  covered  under the  Sambalpur-Talcher  Rail Link Project

9036

(ii) The number of persons from amongst  the  affected families  who  had  applied for employment

2805

(iii) The number of persons from amongst the affected group who  appeared  for  the written test

652  persons  were shortlisted  after scrutinizing  the Application, but only 553 persons appeared for the written test

(iv) The  number  of  persons  who cleared  the  written  test amongst the above group

110  persons  cleared the written test

(v) The  number  of  persons  who have been actually engaged by  the  Railway Administration from amongst the group of oustees

76  persons  were offered  employed  by the  Railway Administration,  but only  66  persons joined service. 7  persons  did  not join  and  3  were declared  medically unfit.

(vi) The grounds on which those who  could  not  be accommodated were rejected

Grounds for rejection of 2153 land oustee- applicants:

(1) 1831 persons (No land acquisition certificate enclosed)

(2) 215 persons (Insufficient  proof of  being  land  loser in  the  land acquisition certificate enclosed)

(3) 40 persons (Under qualified)

7

(4) 31 persons (Incomplete application)

(5) 14 persons (Over  aged  as  per Advertisement  dt. 31.07.1998)

(6) 13 persons (Under  age  as  per Advertisement  dt. 31.07.1998)

(7) 7 persons (Photographs  in applications  not attested)

(8) 2 persons (Proper  caste certificate  not enclosed)

Note: Out  of  2805 Applicant-land oustees  who  had applied, 2153 persons were rejected and 652 persons  were shortlisted initially.

Number of remaining persons who  meet  the  minimum qualifications  and  job description (other than the age  requirement)  as stipulated  in  the advertisement dated 31 July 1998 (Annexure P4)

586  persons  other than those who joined service (652-66) meet the  minimum qualification and job description  and  job description  (other than  the  age requirement)”

It has been stated that as of date, 82 posts remain

unfilled.  It has been stated in the affidavit that the

8

finding of the Tribunal and the High Court that 508 out

of 511 vacancies were filled in by ‘outsiders’ (persons

other than land oustees) is an apparent error, since 429

posts were filled in and 82 posts were kept vacant.  Out

of these 429 posts, 76 posts were offered to persons from

the land oustees category of whom 66 joined service; 7

did not report and 3 were declared medically unfit.  It

has been stated that compensation of Rs 12.11 crores has

been paid to the families of the land oustees.

The dispute in the present case arose from a process

of  selection  commenced  on  31  July  1998  through  an

employment notice2 of the then South Eastern Railway for

recruitment  of  Gangmen  in  Group  ‘D’  posts  in  the

Engineering Department of the Sambalpur Division.  The

advertisement stipulated that the candidates should have

passed  the  8th standard  besides  which  age  requirements

were  set  out.   The  advertisement  stipulated  that  the

selection procedure would be decided by the Additional

Divisional Railway Manager (ADRM).

Thereafter, on 5 February 1999, an employment notice3

was issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Sambalpur

in terms of the earlier notice so as to permit the land

oustees  of  the  Sambalpur-Talcher  Rail  Link  Project  to

apply  directly  against  the  notification  dated  31  July

1998, if they were otherwise eligible.  However, all the

2  No.SHP/3/98 3  No.SBP/1/99

9

terms  and  conditions  published  in  the  earlier

notification remained unchanged.

The  policy  of  the  Railway  Board  envisages  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).   Moreover,  the

instructions  stipulate  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 stipulate

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 which have been

noted earlier, 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  is  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

10

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, in our view, neither appropriate nor proper for the

Tribunal to trench upon that area.

From  the  facts,  which  have  been  disclosed  on

affidavit, in pursuance of the previous order dated 14

February  2019,  it  emerges  that  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.   

We were concerned about the reasons which weighed in

the rejection of 2,153 land oustees – applicants, who

were not shortlisted.  The tabulated statement, which has

been  extracted  earlier,  indicates  the  grounds  for

rejection, which are as follows:

(i) 1,831 persons had not enclosed land acquisition

certificates;

(ii) 215 persons had furnished insufficient proof of

being land losers in the land acquisition;

11

(iii) 40  persons  did  not  have  the  minimum

qualifications;

(iv) 31  persons  had  submitted  incomplete

applications;

(v) 14 persons were over-aged;

(vi) 13 persons were reported under-age;

(vii) 7  persons  had  not  attested  their  photographs;

and

(viii) 2 persons had not submitted caste certificates.

We  are  of  the  view  that  it  would  be  extremely

technical to reject the applications without a 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

contemplates 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, in our view, 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.   

Consequently,  we  direct  that,  notwithstanding  the

earlier rejection of the claims of 2,153 land oustees,

12

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.

We  direct  that  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.  The railway  administration shall  pro-actively

engage  with  the  State  administrative  machinery  in

ensuring proper verification of all claims.

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.  We clarify that there shall be no

13

displacement of the candidates who were appointed in the

process of direct recruitment.

The appeals shall stand allowed.  The judgments of

the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside.  There

shall be an order in terms of the directions given above.

Applications  for  impleadment/intervention  are

allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

.............................J.  (DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD)

.............................J.  (HEMANT GUPTA)

NEW DELHI MARCH 14, 2019

14

ITEM NO.1               COURT NO.11               SECTION XI-A

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3030-3044 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.696-710 of 2011)

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    APPELLANT(s)

                         VERSUS

SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP ETC.ETC. RESPONDENT(s)

(WITH APPLN.(S) FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)

Date : 14-03-2019 These appeals were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv. Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, Adv. Mr. R.B. Yadav, Adv.

                 Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Devansh A. Mohta, Adv.

Mr. Nilakanta Nayak, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Kaushal Navoyan Mishra, Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv.

Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, AOR

Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Robin Khokhar, Adv. Mr. B.N. Dubey, Adv. Mr. P. Dayal, Adv. Ms. Ritu Renitval, Adv.

                 Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR

                   Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR

                   Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR                     

15

                   Ms. Nidhi, AOR

                 Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Ms. Poga Kabra, Adv. Ms. Maithili Shubhangi, Adv.

Mr. Shibashish Misra, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv.

Mr. Somanatha Padhan, Adv. Mr. Ashok Anand, Adv. for Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

Leave granted.

The  appeals  shall  stand  allowed  in  terms  of  the

signed reportable judgment.   

Applications  for  impleadment/intervention  are

allowed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)