Land acquisition alone creates no enforceable right to public employment absent statutory or applicable policy entitlement.

The applicant, Mahesh Kumar Singh, claimed that approximately 1.48 acres of his land and his residential house at Village Dudhaila, Sonpur, District Saran, were acquired for the Ganga Rail-cum-Road Bridge/Extension Project.

He asserted that the Railway authorities had agreed to provide employment to one eligible member of each displaced family, and that he had submitted the requisite documents for appointment of his son.

Joint verification reports and revenue authorities’ reports allegedly recognised him as an affected/displaced person, and compensation was paid in respect of the acquired property.

In an earlier O.A. No. 474 of 2015, the Tribunal directed reconsideration of his claim.

Upon reconsideration, Respondent No. 6 rejected the claim by order dated 22 May 2019, stating that no special Railway dispensation existed for appointment of displaced persons under the Extension Project and that no such employment had been provided under that project.

The respondents contended that acquisition and payment of compensation did not create a right to public employment; that the applicant had not established an applicable employment policy; and that discrepancies existed regarding ownership and the extent of the acquired property.

Whether acquisition of the applicant’s land and residential house created an enforceable right in favour of the applicant or his son to appointment in the Railways in the absence of a specific statutory provision, Railway rule, policy or special dispensation.

Whether the applicant could claim appointment on the basis that other allegedly similarly situated displaced persons had been appointed, thereby establishing discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the order dated 22 May 2019 rejecting the applicant’s claim was arbitrary, contrary to applicable Railway policy, or otherwise liable to be quashed.

Acquisition of land, by itself, does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to public employment upon the landholder or his dependent unless such employment is authorised by a statutory provision, applicable rule, binding policy or valid executive scheme.

The Tribunal relied on Railway instructions contained in the Ministry’s letters dated 19 April 2006, 28 July 2008 and 26 April 2011, which did not create an automatic right to appointment merely on the basis of the area or measurement of acquired land.

The Tribunal also considered the withdrawal of the earlier land-loser appointment policy by RBE No. 193/2019 dated 11 November 2019, observing that any employment benefit was policy-based and subject to the terms of the applicable policy, not an absolute constitutional or statutory entitlement.

Articles 14 and 16 could not be invoked to create a right to public employment where no underlying legal entitlement existed; a discrimination claim required proof of parity in all material respects and the existence of a uniform policy applicable to the claimant.

The Tribunal also relied on Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana, SLP (C) No. 10798/2025, decided on 7 November 2025, and Union of India v. Smt. Sumitra Devi, LPA No. 465 of 2022, for the principle that acquisition and compensation do not, absent an applicable legal provision, generate an enforceable right to employment.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s land had been acquired and that compensation had been paid, but held that these facts established only his status as an affected landholder and not a legal entitlement to appointment.

The documents showing verification of his claim and the treatment of other displaced persons did not amount to an assurance of employment, particularly because the applicant failed to establish that the same policy or special dispensation applied to the Extension Project.

The alleged appointments of other persons could not support a claim under Articles 14 and 16 without proof that they were similarly situated in all material respects and that the respondents were bound by a common policy.

The Tribunal further noted unresolved issues concerning joint ownership, the absence of conclusive proof of exclusive ownership, discrepancies in the measurement of the acquired property, and the lack of a contemporaneous specific application seeking appointment of the applicant’s son under an applicable policy.

Since the competent authority had reconsidered the claim pursuant to the earlier Tribunal direction and had passed a reasoned order, no ground for judicial interference was made out.

The claim of discrimination also failed because material parity with the persons allegedly granted appointment was not established.

The challenge to the order dated 22 May 2019 was therefore rejected, and O.A. No. 050/00703/2019 was dismissed.

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.