Claims for appointment under the defunct LARSGESS Scheme are untenable following its constitutionally mandated termination.

The applicants, employees of the Western Railways and their respective wards, filed four Original Applications (OAs) seeking appointment for the wards under the Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff (LARSGESS).

The respondent authorities had rejected their claims for such appointments.

The applicants contended that their cases were distinguishable from other similar claims because they approached the Tribunal before the scheme was officially terminated by the Government of India.

The matters were clubbed due to the commonality of the legal controversy regarding the scheme's validity.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to seek appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme notwithstanding its termination and subsequent judicial pronouncements on its constitutionality.

2. Whether the timing of the application (prior to the scheme's termination) creates a vested right or legitimate expectation that exempts the applicants from the ruling in Manjit v. Union of India.

The Tribunal applied the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manjit and others v. Union of India and another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 78 of 2021), which held that the LARSGESS Scheme was fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution of India as it provided a "back door entry" into public service.

The rule dictates that since the scheme has been terminated, no claims based on it—regardless of when they originated—can be entertained, as the scheme no longer exists.

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' argument that approaching the court prior to the scheme's formal termination distinguished their case.

It reasoned that because the LARSGESS scheme has been completely withdrawn by the Government of India and declared unconstitutional by the Apex Court, it is no longer in existence.

The Tribunal emphasized the Supreme Court's observation that the scheme violated the right to equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16.

Consequently, the applicants could claim neither a "vested right" nor a "legitimate expectation" under a scheme that was legally void and discontinued.

The court determined that the specific direction from the Supreme Court to close "all claims based on the Scheme" left no room for exceptions based on the filing date of the application.

The Tribunal followed the mandate of the Supreme Court to close all pending claims related to LARSGESS.

Accordingly, all four Original Applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.