Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the Punjab State Electricity Board's acquisition of land for a power project, which included a small portion owned by the respondent. Following the acquisition, the Board initiated a policy to provide employment to affected families, recommending the respondent's name among others for priority appointment. However, the policy was later revised, limiting eligibility to those whose land acquisition was two acres or more, and the respondent's claim was contested based on this change. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the revised policy and seeking appointment as a Homeopathic Physician, which the High Court granted. The Board appealed, arguing that the respondent had no vested right to the position due to the policy changes and his ineligibility based on land size and age. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding vested rights and eligibility under employment schemes, referencing prior judgments that established that mere inclusion in a select list does not guarantee appointment. The Court concluded that the respondent's claim was unfounded as he did not meet the revised criteria and had already received compensation for his land. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Vested Rights - No Vested Right to Appointment - Constitution Bench Judgment - Mere inclusion in a select list does not confer a vested right to appointment. The court held that the respondent did not have a vested right to appointment under the revised policy, as the policy could be changed to the disadvantage of candidates without creating an indefeasible right (Paras 3-4). B) Employment Law - Eligibility Criteria - Changes in Eligibility Criteria - Employment policy can be revised. The court found that the respondent was not eligible for appointment under the revised policy due to the size of land acquired and age limit, thus the High Court's order was erroneous (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent had a vested right to appointment under the employment scheme despite changes in eligibility criteria.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the respondent was not entitled to appointment under the revised policy.
Law Points
- Vested rights
- Employment policy
- Eligibility criteria
- Discretionary power of state
- Concessionary schemes
