Holding

The Railway Board's preferential employment policy is conditional on meeting all qualifications and undergoing the normal selection process, and the Tribunal and High Court erred in exempting land oustees from that process.

Summary

The case concerned rehabilitation of persons displaced by land acquisition for the Sambalpur‑Talcher Rail Link Project. The Railway Board had issued a policy granting preferential treatment to land oustees for Group C and D posts, subject to meeting qualifications and undergoing the normal selection process. The Central Administrative Tribunal held that land oustees should be exempt from selection, a view affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the policy was conditional and that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by substituting its own directions, and that land oustees must satisfy the same selection criteria. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments, ordered re‑verification of rejected applicants, and directed fresh recruitment for the remaining vacancies, with an age relaxation of 15 years. The appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Railway Board's policy of preferential employment for land oustees is subject to the fulfillment of all qualifications and selection procedures.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal exceeded its adjudicatory authority by directing that land oustees be exempt from the selection process.
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Tribunal's decision.
Whether the rejected land oustees are entitled to a fresh opportunity for verification and recruitment.
Whether the burden of proof of land loss can be placed solely on the applicants.

Subjects

rehabilitationland acquisitionpreferential employmentRailway Board policyCentral Administrative Tribunalselection processverification of land ousteesgovernment policy implementationadministrative law

Judgment

[2019] 5 S.C.R. 471 471

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP ETC.ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3030-3044 of 2019)
MARCH 14, 2019 B

[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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
H
471
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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

H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP 473

instructions and circulars, it is not possible to accede to the view A
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 was subject to the
fulfillment of all other terms and conditions, stipulated in the
instructions. While laying down a policy for preferential treatment,
B
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 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, C
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 neither appropriate nor proper for the
Tribunal to trench upon that area. Out of 9,036 families which
D
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.
[Paras 18-20] [480-G-H; 481-A-E] E
1.2 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. As a matter of fact, the policy which has
been formulated by the Ministry of Railways contemplated that F
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 that the Ministry
of Railways must coordinate its activities with the local G
administration so as to ensure due verification of the claims made
by the applicants. Notwithstanding the earlier rejection of the
claims of 2,153 land oustees, steps should be taken for re-

H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A 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. 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
B
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
C shall be completed within the next six months.
[Paras 22, 23] [482-B-G]
1.3 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
D 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. It is
clarified that there shall be no displacement of the candidates
E who were appointed in the process of direct recruitment. The
judgments of the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside.
[Paras 24, 25] [482-G-H; 483-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3030-
3044 of 2019.
F
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2010 of the
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in OJC Case Nos.6154-6168 of 2002
A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Salvador Santosh
Rebello, Akshay Amritanshu, Ms.Ankita Sharma, R.B. Yadav, Mrs. Anil
G Katiyar, Advs. for the Appellants.
R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv., Devansh A. Mohta, Nilakanta Nayak, Amit
Yadav, Kaushal Navoyan Mishra, A.P. Mayee, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan,
Kumar Gaurav, Robin Khokhar, B.N. Dubey, P. Dayal, Ms. Ritu Renitval,

H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP 475

Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Sibo Sankar Mishra, A
Ms. Nidhi, Garvesh Kabra, Ms. Poga Kabra, Ms. Maithili Shubhangi,
Shibashish Misra, Chandan Kumar Mandal, Somanatha Padhan, Ashok
Anand (for Ms. Anagha S. Desai) Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J B

1. Leave granted.
2. 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. C
3. The Union Government in the Ministry of Railways formulated
certain policies on which the claim in the present appeals rests.
4. 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 D
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 projects
on the Railways for employment of the displaced person, or his E
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 F
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. G
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.
H
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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.”
5. The Railway Board issued another circular on 10 November
1
C 1989 . 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.”
6. The circular laid down modalities for inviting applications from
D eligible persons belonging to families which were displaced as a result of
the acquisition of land.
7. 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
E 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
F 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.”
G 8. 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
1
H No.E(NG)II/89/RC-2/38
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP 477
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the Railway Administration for initiating a selection process for filling up A
511 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, holding that recourse to 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
B
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.
9. 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 C
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 D
reasoning, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and affirmed the
view of the Tribunal.
10. Assailing the decision of the High Court, the Union of India is
in appeal before this Court.
11. During the course of the hearing, Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned E
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
reflected in these judgments were erroneous.
12. In view of the submissions which were addressed before this
Court, the following order was passed on 14 February 2019: F
“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:-
G
(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;
H
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A (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
B the Railway Administration from amongst the group of oustees;
and
(vi) The grounds on which those who could not be accommodated
were rejected.

C 13. 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
D be filed before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to the
learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties.”
14. 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.
E The affidavit contains the following tabulated statement:

“S.No. Details sought by this Hon’ble Court Particulars
(i) Total number of families which were 9036
covered under the Sambalpur-Talcher Rail
Link Project
F
(ii) The number of persons from amongst the 2805
affected families who had applied for
employment
(iii) The number of persons from amongst the 652 persons were shortlisted after
affected group who appeared for the written scrutinizing the Application, but
G test only 553 persons appeared for the
written test
(iv) The number of persons who cleared the 110 persons cleared the written
written test amongst the above group test

H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP 479
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(iv) The number of persons who cleared the 110 persons cleared the written
A
written test amongst the above group test
(v) The number of persons who have been 76 persons were offered
actually engaged by the Railway employed by the Railway
Administration from amongst the group of Administration, but only 66
oustees persons joined service.
7 persons did not join and 3 were B
declared medically unfit.
(vi) The grounds on which those who could not Grounds for rejection of 2153
be accommodated were rejected land oustee-applicants:

(1) 1831 persons
(No land acquisition certificate
enclosed) C
(2) 215 persons
(Insufficient proof of being land
loser in the land acquisition
certificate enclosed)

(3) 40 persons D
(Under qualified)

(4) 31 persons
(Incomplete application)

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

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

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

(8) 2 persons
(Proper caste certificate not
enclosed)
G
Note:
Out of 2805 Applicant-land
oustees who had applied, 2153
persons were rejected and 652
persons were shortlisted initially.

H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A
Number of remaining persons who meet the 586 persons other than those who
minimum qualifications and job description joined service (652-66) meet the
(other than the age requirement) as minimum qualification and job
stipulated in the advertisement dated 31 description and job description
July 1998 (Annexure P4) (other than the age requirement)”
B 15. It has been stated that as of date, 82 posts remain unfilled. It
has been stated in the affidavit that the 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
C 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.
16. The dispute in the present case arose from a process of
D 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
E by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager (ADRM).
17. 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
F 1998, if they were otherwise eligible. However, all the terms and conditions
published in the earlier notification remained unchanged.
18. 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,
G 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

2
No.SHP/3/98
H 3
No.SBP/1/99
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP 481
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

fulfill the qualifications for the post and should be found suitable by the A
appropriate recruitment committees.
19. 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 B
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 limits of its adjudicatory authority C
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 D
out, it was, in our view, neither appropriate nor proper for the Tribunal to
trench upon that area.
20. 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 E
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.
21. We were concerned about the reasons which weighed in the F
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 G
in the land acquisition;
(iii) 40 persons did not have the minimum qualifications;
(iv) 31 persons had submitted incomplete applications;
H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 5 S.C.R.

A (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.
B 22. 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
C 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
D verification of the claims made by the applicants.
23. Consequently, we direct that, notwithstanding the earlier
rejection of the claims of 2,153 land oustees, 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
E 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
F 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.
G
24. 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
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP 483
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

written test, minimum age requirements and medical fitness. The written A
test shall be held exclusively for the applicants from among the land
oustees. We clarify that there shall be no displacement of the candidates
who were appointed in the process of direct recruitment.
25. 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 B
the directions given above.
26. Applications for impleadment/intervention are allowed. There
shall be no order as to costs.

C
Divya Pandey Appeals allowed.

D

E

F

G

H