Rehabilitation employment does not confer a right to regular appointment absent an express policy guarantee.

The petitioners’ agricultural lands were acquired for a power-generation project.

They were offered contractual employment as land oustees, but sought regular/permanent appointments, relying in part on regular appointments said to have been granted to similarly situated oustees.

They also sought relief concerning recruitment by the respondents.

The respondents relied on the Court’s earlier decision in Jaydeep Rathore v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WPS No. 6838 of 2026, which rejected a claim to regular appointment on materially similar facts.

The Court considered the connected petitions together and referred to the pleadings in WPS No. 7393 of 2026 for convenience.

1. Whether land oustees offered contractual employment under the applicable rehabilitation policy were entitled to regular or permanent appointment.

2. Whether earlier regular appointments to other land oustees entitled the petitioners to parity, notwithstanding the respondents’ position that posts earmarked for regular employment had been exhausted.

The Model Rehabilitation Policy, 2007, Clause 7.1, provides for “employment” but does not itself guarantee regular or permanent appointment or appointment against a regular sanctioned post.

Earlier regular appointments do not, by themselves, create an indefeasible right to regular appointment for later land oustees; the availability of sanctioned posts and the circumstances prevailing when those appointments were made are relevant.

The Court identified no separate statutory provision as the basis of its decision.

The Court found that the facts and issues in these petitions were identical to those in Jaydeep Rathore and declined to take a different view.

It therefore adopted that decision’s reasoning: prior regular appointments did not establish a continuing right to regular employment, particularly where the regular posts had been exhausted, and the policy’s reference to employment did not require regular appointment.

The Court did not separately analyse the petitioners’ recruitment-notification challenge.

The Court dismissed all the connected writ petitions in terms of its order dated 18 September 2026 in Jaydeep Rathore.