Supreme Court Directs Re-Verification of Land Oustees’ Claims for Railway Jobs in Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 176

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J

Can the government deny employment to individuals displaced by land acquisition for railway projects based on minor technicalities? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue, focusing on the rehabilitation of land oustees affected by the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project. The court’s decision emphasizes the need for a fair and inclusive approach to ensure that those who have lost their land are given a genuine opportunity for employment. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.

Case Background

The case originates from the acquisition of land between 1984-85 and 1992-93 for the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project. The Union Government, through the Ministry of Railways, had established policies to provide employment to individuals displaced by such acquisitions. These policies aimed to offer jobs to the displaced person or their family members in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ posts within the Railways. However, the implementation of these policies became a point of contention, leading to the present dispute.

The Railway Board formulated a policy on 24 November 1987, outlining guidelines for offering employment to those displaced by land acquisition for railway projects. This policy stipulated that one job should be offered per family, subject to certain conditions, including that the individual should be displaced or be a son/daughter/ward/wife of a displaced person, and that they should fulfill the qualifications for the post. The policy also specified that this preferential treatment should be limited to direct recruitment categories and to the first recruitment or within two years of land acquisition, whichever is later. Furthermore, it was mandated that the displaced persons should not have derived any benefit through the State Government in the form of alternative cultivable land etc.

Further circulars were issued on 10 November 1989 and 8 December 1989, clarifying the modalities for inviting applications and emphasizing that not more than one job per family could be given. These circulars also specified that once an offer of appointment has been made, no further applications from the same family for the same land acquisition would be entertained. The dispute arose when the Railway Administration initiated a selection process for filling 511 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, without adequately accommodating the land oustees.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The dispute began with Original Applications filed by land oustees before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Cuttack. The CAT, on 20 February 2002, directed the Railway Administration to ensure the rehabilitation of land oustees, criticizing the direct recruitment process without accommodating them. The CAT held that land oustees who met the educational and age requirements did not have to undergo the selection process stipulated in the employment notice issued on 31 July 1998, and that it would be sufficient if they were found suitable by the recruitment committee.

The Union of India challenged the CAT’s decision in the High Court of Orissa. The High Court upheld the CAT’s decision, noting that out of 511 vacancies, 508 had been filled by ‘outsiders’ instead of land oustees. The High Court affirmed 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 dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the view of the Tribunal.

The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court, assailing the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the submissions, directed the Union to provide detailed information regarding the number of affected families, applications received, and the reasons for rejection of applications.

Legal Framework

The legal framework in this case is primarily based on the policies formulated by the Railway Board concerning the employment of land oustees. The key policy is the letter dated 24 November 1987, which provides guidelines for offering employment to persons displaced by land acquisition for railway projects. This letter stipulates 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 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 also issued circulars on 10 November 1989 and 8 December 1989, which further clarified the procedures for inviting applications from eligible persons and emphasized that not more than one job could be given to one family. The circular dated 8 December 1989 also stated that “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.”. These policies provide the framework for the preferential treatment of land oustees in railway employment.

Arguments

Arguments by the Union of India:

• The Union of India argued that the figures reflected in the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court were erroneous.
• They contended that the policy of the Railway Board provides for preferential treatment to land oustees, but this is subject to the fulfillment of all other terms and conditions stipulated in the instructions.
• The Union of India submitted that the land oustees were required to undergo the selection process and that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by substituting its own directions for the policy formulated by the Union Government.
• They stated that the land oustees were required to fulfill the qualifications for the post and should be found suitable by the appropriate recruitment committees.
• The Union of India emphasized that 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.

Arguments by the Land Oustees:

• The land oustees argued that they were entitled to preferential treatment in employment due to the acquisition of their lands for the railway project.
• They contended that the Railway Administration had not adequately accommodated them in the recruitment process and had instead filled most vacancies with ‘outsiders’.
• They supported the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court, which had directed the Railway Administration to ensure their rehabilitation.
• They argued that the selection process should not be a barrier to their employment, given the displacement they had suffered.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the land oustees are entitled to preferential treatment in employment in Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts in the Railways, and if so, to what extent?
2. Whether the land oustees are required to undergo the selection process stipulated by the Railway Administration, or whether they can be directly appointed based on their eligibility?
3. Whether the Railway Administration had correctly implemented the policy for offering employment to land oustees.
4. Whether the rejection of the applications of 2,153 land oustees was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Railway Board Policy dated 24 November 1987: This policy laid down the guidelines for offering employment to persons displaced by land acquisition for railway projects. It stipulated that one job should be offered per family, subject to certain conditions.
• Railway Board Circular dated 10 November 1989: This circular outlined the modalities for inviting applications from eligible persons belonging to families displaced by land acquisition.
• Railway Board Letter dated 8 December 1989: This letter stipulated 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.

[TABLE] of Authorities and their Treatment:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on the Railway Board Policy dated 24 November 1987* to determine the conditions for preferential treatment of land oustees.
• The Court used the Railway Board Circular dated 10 November 1989* to understand the procedure for inviting applications.
• The Railway Board Letter dated 8 December 1989* was used to clarify the implementation of the policy for offering appointments.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal. The Court held that while land oustees are entitled to preferential treatment, they must also fulfill the stipulated conditions, including undergoing the selection process. The Court found that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by directing the Railway Administration to directly appoint land oustees without a selection process. However, the Court also noted that the rejection of the applications of 2,153 land oustees was overly technical and directed re-verification of their claims.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a desire to balance the need for policy implementation with the need to ensure fairness towards land oustees. The court recognized that the Railway Board’s policies aimed to provide preferential treatment to displaced persons, but it also emphasized that these policies could not be implemented without adhering to the stipulated conditions. The court was concerned that the Tribunal and the High Court had overstepped their boundaries by directing the Railway Administration to bypass the selection process for land oustees. However, the court was also mindful of the fact that the rejection of a large number of applications on technical grounds was not fair to the land oustees.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

The court’s reasoning was a mix of factual considerations (such as the number of applicants and the reasons for rejection) and legal considerations (such as the interpretation of the Railway Board’s policies and the limits of judicial authority). The court’s decision reflects a pragmatic approach that aims to ensure both policy compliance and justice for the affected parties.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the Tribunal’s view that the land oustees should be directly appointed without a selection process. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, holding that it was inconsistent with the Railway Board’s policies and that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority. The Court’s final decision was reached after a careful consideration of the facts, the relevant policies, and the submissions of the parties.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The Tribunal had exceeded its authority by substituting its own directions for the policy formulated by the Union Government.
• The policy of the Railway Board provides for preferential treatment to land oustees, but this is subject to the fulfillment of all other terms and conditions stipulated in the instructions.
• The land oustees were required to undergo the selection process and that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by substituting its own directions for the policy formulated by the Union Government.
• The rejection of the applications of 2,153 land oustees was overly technical and did not provide them with a fair opportunity to comply with the terms and conditions.

The Court did not have any dissenting opinions. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.

The judgment has several potential implications for future cases. It clarifies that while the government is required to provide preferential treatment to land oustees, this does not mean that they can be exempted from the selection process altogether. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a fair and transparent process for the verification of claims, with sufficient opportunity for applicants to comply with the requirements. This could lead to a more balanced approach in future cases involving land acquisition and rehabilitation.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. The decision was based on the interpretation of the existing policies and the application of established legal principles.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court directed re-verification of all claims of the 2,153 land oustees who were rejected earlier.
• The Court mandated that sufficient opportunity be granted to the land oustees to submit applications afresh along with requisite certificates.
• The Court directed that fresh applications be called within a period of three months, with due publicity in the area.
• The Court directed that the applications be reconsidered against the 82 existing vacancies and any other vacancies that may arise in the next two years.
• The Court granted an age relaxation of 15 years to the applicants.
• The Court clarified that the selection process shall be completed within the next six months and that the Railway Administration shall proactively engage with the State administrative machinery in ensuring proper verification of all claims.
• The Court clarified that there shall be no displacement of the candidates who were appointed in the process of direct recruitment.

The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the rehabilitation of land oustees in future railway projects. It emphasizes the need for a fair and inclusive approach, ensuring that those who have lost their land are given a genuine opportunity for employment. The decision also highlights the importance of coordination between the Railway Administration and the local administrative machinery in the verification of claims.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• Re-verification of all claims of the 2,153 land oustees who were rejected earlier.
• Sufficient opportunity to be granted to the land oustees to submit applications afresh along with requisite certificates.
• Fresh applications to be called within a period of three months, with due publicity in the area.
• Reconsideration of the applications against the 82 existing vacancies and any other vacancies that may arise in the next two years.
• Age relaxation of 15 years to the applicants.
• Completion of the selection process within the next six months.
• Proactive engagement of the Railway Administration with the State administrative machinery in ensuring proper verification of all claims.
• No displacement of the candidates who were appointed in the process of direct recruitment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while land oustees are entitled to preferential treatment in employment, they are still required to fulfill the stipulated conditions, including undergoing the selection process. The court clarified that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by directing the Railway Administration to directly appoint land oustees without a selection process. This decision reinforces the principle that judicial bodies cannot substitute their own policies for those formulated by the executive branch. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a fair and transparent process for the verification of claims, with sufficient opportunity for applicants to comply with the requirements.

This judgment does not significantly change the previous positions of law, but it does provide a clearer understanding of how existing policies should be implemented. It clarifies the balance between preferential treatment and adherence to selection criteria in cases involving land acquisition and rehabilitation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Shankar Prasad Deep Etc.Etc. directed the re-verification of claims of land oustees affected by the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project. While affirming the policy of preferential treatment for land oustees, the court clarified that they must still fulfill the stipulated conditions, including undergoing the selection process. The court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint and adherence to established policies. The judgment underscores the importance of a fair and transparent process for the verification of claims and the need for coordination between the Railway Administration and local authorities.

Category

Parent Category: Land Acquisition

Child Category: Rehabilitation of Land Oustees

Child Category: Railway Employment Policy

Parent Category: Indian Railways

Child Category: Group C and D Posts

Parent Category: Administrative Law

Child Category: Judicial Review

Parent Category: Constitution of India

Child Category: Article 14

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue is the rehabilitation of land oustees whose lands were acquired for the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail Link Project, specifically regarding their employment in the Railways.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the employment of land oustees?

A: The Supreme Court decided that while land oustees are entitled to preferential treatment, they must still fulfill the stipulated conditions, including undergoing the selection process.

Q: Why were the applications of 2,153 land oustees rejected?

A: The applications were rejected on technical grounds, such as not enclosing land acquisition certificates, insufficient proof of being a land loser, and not meeting the age or educational qualifications.

Q: What did the Supreme Court direct regarding the rejected applications?

A: The Supreme Court directed re-verification of all the rejected claims, with sufficient opportunity for the land oustees to submit fresh applications and the required certificates.

Q: What is the age relaxation given to the land oustees?

A: The Supreme Court granted an age relaxation of 15 years to the land oustees applying for railway jobs.

Q: What should the Railway Administration do now?

A: The Railway Administration must call for fresh applications within three months, conduct a selection process within six months, and proactively engage with the State administrative machinery to verify the claims of the land oustees.

Q: Does this judgment mean that land oustees are guaranteed a job?

A: No, the judgment clarifies that while land oustees are entitled to preferential treatment, they must still meet the required qualifications and undergo the selection process. The judgment ensures they are given a fair chance to compete for the available positions.