Supreme Court of India
MANJIT AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. on 29 January 2021
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
A
MANJIT AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No 78 of 2021)
BJANUARY 29, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD,INDIRA BANERJEE AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Largess Scheme – Providing for entry into service for certainCwards of serving employees of railways, without undergoing acompetitive selection – Writ Petition u/Art. 32 – Seeking direction tothe State to appoint the petitioners under the Scheme – Held: TheUnion Government after revisiting the Scheme, upon direction ofthe Courts, has terminated the Scheme – The Scheme has rightlyDbeen terminated as the same provided for an avenue of back doorentry into the service, which was at odds with Art. 16 of theConstitution – The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nora legitimate expectation under the Scheme – All claims based on theScheme must be closed.
EDismissing the petition, the Court
HELD : A conscious decision has been taken by the Unionof India to terminate the Largess Scheme. While taking thisdecision on 5 March 2019, the Union of India had stated thatwhere wards had completed all formalities prior to 27 OctoberF2017 (the date of termination of the Scheme) and were found fit,since the matter was pending consideration before this Court,further instructions would be issued in accordance with thedirections of this Court. Noticing the above decision, this Court,in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that sincethe Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence,Gnothing further need be done in the matter. The Scheme providedfor an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways.This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of theConstitution. The Union Government has with justification H
discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither avested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme.All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed. Therefore,the petition under Article 32 cannot be entertained. [Paras 6 and7][477-B-D, E]
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.78 of 2021.
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shakeel Ahmed, Anupam Bhati, Ms.Malvika Raghavan, Nakul Chaudhary, H.S. Mann, Advs. for theappearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Invoking the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution,the petitioners seek the following reliefs:
“(a)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing therespondent to appoint the petitioners in their respectivecadres; and (b)Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in thefacts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The dispute in the present case relates to a scheme, popularlytermed as the Larsgess Scheme, which had been adopted by the RailwayAdministration previously. The Punjab and Haryana High Court passedorders on 27 April 2016 and 14 July 2017 requiring the Union of India toreconsider the Scheme. The orders of the High Court were evidentlybased on the fact that the Scheme provided for an entry into service forcertain wards of serving employees without undergoing a competitiveselection consistent with the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution. On 8 January 2018, in SLP (C) No 508 of 2018, arisingfrom the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryanadated 14 July 2017 in RP No 330 of 2017, this Court directed the Unionof India to take a conscious decision within a period of six weeks . Theorder dated 8 January 2018 was in the following terms:
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Delay condoned.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
“Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Delay condoned.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Since the direction in the impugned order is only to re-visit theScheme in question, no interference is called for at this stage.The petitioner(s) may take a conscious decision in the matter withina period of six weeks from today. If any party is affected by thedecision taken, such party may take remedy against the same inaccordance with law.
A
B
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), including application for intervention, shallalso stand disposed of.”
3. On 5 March 2019, the Union of India took a decision to terminateCthe Scheme. The decision of the Union of India was noticed in an orderdated 6 March 2019, in the following terms:
“In compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court dated 27.04.2016 in CWP No.7714 of 2016, dated14.07 .2017 in RA-CW-330-2017 and Orders of Hon’ble SupremeDCourt dated 08.01.2018 in SLP (C) No.508/2018, Ministry ofRailways have revisited the LARSGESS Scheme duly obtaininglegal opinion and consulted Ministry of Law & Justice. Accordingly,it has been decided to terminate the LARSGESS Scheme w.e.f.27.10.2017 i.e. the date from which it was put on hold. Therefore,Eno further appointments should be made under the Scheme subjectto position mentioned in para 2 below.
2. As regards the cases where the wards had completed allformalities including Medical Examination under LARSGESSScheme prior to 27.10.2017 and were found fit, but the employeesFare yet to retire, the matter is pending consideration before theHon’ble supreme Court and further instructions would be issuedas per directions of the Hon’ble Court.”
4. Following the above decision, on 6 March 2019, this Courtdisposed of IA 18573 of 2019 in Miscellaneous Application No 346 of2019 in Miscellaneous Application No 1202 of 2018 in SLP (C) No 508Gof 2018 by observing that “since the Scheme stands terminated and is nolonger in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter”.
5. In a subsequent order dated 26 March 2019, which was renderedin Writ Petition (C) No 219 of 2019 (Narinder Siraswal v Union ofIndia), a Bench of two-Judges permitted the petitioners to approach theH
authorities with an appropriate representation with a direction to considerit.
6. The reliefs which have been sought in the present case, asalready noted earlier, are for a writ of mandamus to the Union of Indiato appoint the petitioners in their respective cadres. A conscious decisionhas been taken by the Union of India to terminate the Scheme. This hasbeen noticed in the order of this Court dated 6 March 2019, which hasbeen extracted above. While taking this decision on 5 March 2019, theUnion of India had stated that where wards had completed all formalitiesprior to 27 October 2017 (the date of termination of the Scheme) andwere found fit, since the matter was pending consideration before thisCourt, further instructions would be issued in accordance with thedirections of this Court. Noticing the above decision, this Court, in itsorder dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Schemestands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need bedone in the matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back doorentry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally atodds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union government haswith justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claimneither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme.All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed.
7. In view of the above factual background, we are not inclined toentertain the petition under Article 32. The grant of reliefs to the petitionerswould only enable them to seek a back door entry contrary to the ordersof this Court. The Union of India has correctly terminated the Schemeand that decision continues to stand.
8. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the petitionis dismissed. A certified copy of this order shall be forwarded by theRegistrar (Judicial) to the Chairman of the Railway Board for intimationand compliance.
9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
Kalpana K. Tripathy
Petition dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H