Railways lack obligation to grant employment to land losers failing to meet prescribed age and educational criteria.

The applicants’ parents’ land was acquired by the Railways for the Rewa-Sidhi-Singrauli broad gauge line, with a compensation award passed on July 25, 2017

Pursuant to a 2016 policy, the applicants applied for railway employment as land losers

Although a verification list was prepared in 2022, the respondents failed to offer appointments

The respondents contested the claim, citing RBE No. 193/2019, which withdrew the employment-for-land policy effective November 11, 2019

Furthermore, Applicant No. 1 was a minor (8th pass) and Applicant No. 2 had exceeded the maximum age limit of 32 years as of the cut-off date stipulated in the 2016 notification

1. Whether the withdrawal of the employment policy via RBE No. 193/2019 applies retrospectively to land acquired prior to the notification

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to employment despite failing to meet the age and educational criteria set out in the recruitment notification

The Tribunal applied the principle that circulars such as RBE No. 193/2019 are generally prospective, as established in O.A. No. 200/275/2021 and affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in WPS No. 5804 of 2022, which held that the date of land acquisition determines the applicable policy

granting relaxations in age or qualification for appointment is the sole prerogative of the employer and cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of a specific policy [Misc. Petition No. 6992 of 2025]

The Tribunal noted that while the applicants’ land was acquired in 2017—prior to the policy withdrawal in 2019—and thus theoretically governed by the earlier employment scheme, they failed to meet the substantive eligibility criteria

Specifically, Applicant No. 1 did not possess the mandatory 10th-pass qualification and was under 18 years of age at the relevant time, while Applicant No. 2 exceeded the maximum age of 32 years

Applying the reasoning from MP-6992-2025, the Tribunal observed that the power to relax recruitment standards lies exclusively with the respondents

Since the respondents chose not to grant such relaxations and as no current policy mandates the grant of employment to land losers, the applicants remained ineligible

The Original Application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded