J&K&L HC Rejects Two Railway Land-Loser Job Claims, Says Former Quota Policy Bypassed Open Competition

The petitioners sought engagement under the Railway land-loser quota, alleging that land belonging to their families had been acquired for a railway yard and workshop at Ompora, Budgam.

The respondents maintained that both claims were received in 2023, after the Railway Board withdrew the appointment policy in 2019, and disputed petitioner No. 2’s assertion of earlier consideration.

They sought appointment or, alternatively, consideration of their claims under the earlier policy.

Under Article 226, mandamus requires an established subsisting legal right and a corresponding public duty; land acquisition alone does not create an indefeasible right to public employment, which must arise under the governing policy or statutory framework.

The Court applied Articles 14 and 16, holding that public appointments must follow a fair, transparent, open and merit-based process that affords eligible candidates equal opportunity.

Relying on State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1, it stated that appointments made outside the applicable rules and constitutional scheme do not confer an enforceable right.

It also relied on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, for the principle that public employment ordinarily requires inviting applications from all eligible candidates through an appropriate open process.

The Court found no evidence that either petitioner had acquired a vested or otherwise enforceable right before the policy’s withdrawal, or that a saving provision preserved their claims.

For petitioner No. 1, the brother’s medical disqualification did not establish an entitlement in her favour, and the 2012 communication and subsequent forwarding of her name did not amount to a binding assurance of appointment.

For petitioner No. 2, the alleged newspaper listing did not prove a final appointment or a right in him as a substitute; the department’s record placed receipt of his case in 2023, long after the acquisition.

The claimed comparators and the communication referring to cases under process did not establish either identical treatment or approval of the petitioners’ claims.

The Court further reasoned that appointment merely in exchange for acquired land, without open competition, was inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 and could not ground an enforceable claim.

Their discrimination claims and request for engagement orders therefore failed.

The writ petition and connected applications were dismissed.