Facts
The applicant sought appointment in the Railways on rehabilitation grounds following the acquisition of his father’s land (0.926 hectare) for the Lalitpur-Singrouli Railway Line project
Source reference: p. 2A final award for the acquisition was passed on 14.11.2012
Source reference: p. 2Under the Railway policy dated 16.07.2010, land losers were eligible for employment assistance
Source reference: p. 2The applicant applied for a position, but in 2020, the respondents informed him that he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as he was only "8th pass"
Source reference: p. 2Although the applicant subsequently submitted his Class 10th marksheet in 2021, the respondents failed to communicate further
Source reference: p. 3The respondents argued that a newer policy (RBE No. 193/2019) had replaced the earlier scheme, removing the provision for such appointments
Source reference: p. 3They further contended that the applicant lacked the mandatory Class 10th/ITI qualification at the time of the 2016 notification and had failed to produce No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from co-owners of the joint land
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the Railway Board’s policy dated 11.11.2019 (RBE No. 193/2019) applies retrospectively to land acquisitions completed in 2012
Source reference: p. 42. Whether the applicant was ineligible for appointment due to educational qualifications or the joint nature of the acquired land
Source reference: p. 4-5Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle of non-retrospectivity of administrative policies, asserting that RBE No. 193/2019 does not apply to cases where land acquisition occurred prior to its issuance
Source reference: p. 4It further relied on Clause 5(xi) of the Railway notification dated 14.10.2016, which grants the competent authority discretionary power to relax eligibility criteria, including educational qualifications, in special cases
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' reliance on the 2019 policy, holding that because the land acquisition was finalized in 2012, the instructions issued in 2019 could not be applied retrospectively to deny the applicant's claim
Source reference: p. 4Regarding the ownership of the land, the Tribunal noted that a certificate dated 18.07.2017 proved the applicant's father held a separate 1/8 share, thereby addressing the objection regarding joint ownership and NOCs
Source reference: p. 4On the matter of educational qualifications, the Tribunal observed that the applicant eventually obtained a Class 10th certificate in 2020-2021
Source reference: p. 5Most significantly, the Tribunal found that the respondents failed to exercise the discretion provided under Clause 5(xi) of the 2016 notification to consider a relaxation in educational standards
Source reference: p. 5Since the respondents had not passed a formal order of rejection, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter for fresh consideration
Source reference: p. 5Holding
The Tribunal held that the 2019 policy is not applicable retrospectively and the applicant’s case must be considered under the rules prevailing at the time of acquisition
The Original Application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the applicant’s case for appointment on rehabilitation grounds in light of the Tribunal’s observations
Source reference: p. 5The respondents must pass a necessary order within 90 days from the receipt of the order
Source reference: p. 5No order as to costs was made
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Bal Mukund PatelvsWEST CENTRAL RAILWAY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in