State Cannot Deny Appointment to Land Donor After Granting Parity to Similarly Situated Persons

The applicant, a resident of Rajouri, donated land measuring 03 kanals to the Police Department in 2007 for the construction of a Police Post.

The land was mutated in favor of the department and utilized.

Despite recommendations from local police authorities, the applicant was denied appointment as a Constable/Follower in lieu of the land donation.

Similarly situated donors had previously been granted appointments.

After a prior High Court direction to consider his case, the respondents issued a rejection order (No. 385 of 2015) dated 13.02.2015, citing a lack of statutory rules for such appointments and a policy change in 2011.

The case was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2020.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s claim for appointment was arbitrary and discriminatory given that similarly situated land donors were provided employment under the same practice?

2. Whether a subsequent change in policy or the absence of specific statutory rules can negate a claim arising from a past practice/legitimate expectation upon which the State had already acted?

The court primarily applied the principles of Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution of India.

Where the State utilizes a citizen's land and grants employment to similarly situated persons, the donor’s claim cannot be mechanical brushed aside [Bashir Ahmed Lone v. State and others (2009 (1) JKJ 121)].

Doctrine of "Approbat and Reprobate," stating the State cannot accept land benefits while denying corresponding established practices.

The Tribunal observed that the foundational facts—the donation of 03 kanals of land and its utilization by the department—were admitted by the respondents.

While the State argued that no statutory rules exist for "land-for-job" schemes, the Tribunal found that the department had a consistent practice of making such appointments until July 2007 and even granted similar relief in 2014 under court orders.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s right to fair consideration arose at the time of donation; therefore, a subsequent policy shift in 2011 could not retroactively defeat his claim.

It held that the State’s action was a "pick-and-choose" policy, violating the principle of parity, as the department failed to provide a rational basis for excluding the applicant while benefiting others who had donated less land.

The CAT quashed the impugned order dated 13.02.2015 and directed the respondents to appoint the applicant as a Constable/Follower or an equivalent Class-IV post within three months, with necessary age relaxations, though without arrears of salary.