Supreme Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Termination of Railway Scheme — Upholds Government's Decision. The court found that the petitioners had no vested rights under the terminated scheme, which was inconsistent with constitutional provisions.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by the petitioners seeking appointment in their respective cadres under the LARSGESS Scheme, which had been terminated by the Union of India. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had previously ordered the reconsideration of the scheme due to its inconsistency with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Following these orders, the Supreme Court directed the Union of India to make a conscious decision regarding the scheme. On 5 March 2019, the Union of India decided to terminate the scheme, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in a subsequent order. The petitioners argued for their appointment based on the scheme, but the court found that the scheme allowed for back door entry into service, violating constitutional provisions. The court concluded that the petitioners could not claim any rights under the terminated scheme and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the Union of India had justifiably terminated the scheme. The court ordered that a certified copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Chairman of the Railway Board for compliance.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Termination of Scheme - Article 32 of the Constitution - Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for appointment in their respective cadres under a scheme that was terminated by the Union of India. The court held that the scheme provided for back door entry into service, which was contrary to Article 16, and thus, the petitioners had no vested right or legitimate expectation under the scheme. The petition was dismissed (Paras 6-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under Article 32 for appointment in their respective cadres despite the termination of the LARSGESS Scheme.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners had no vested rights under the terminated scheme and that the Union of India had justifiably terminated it.

Law Points

  • Article 32
  • Article 14
  • Article 16
  • Writ of Mandamus
  • Termination of Scheme
  • Back Door Entry
  • Legitimate Expectation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (01) 174

Writ Petition (Civil) No 78 of 2021

2021-01-29

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee, Sanjiv Khanna

Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Mr. Anupam Bhati, Ms. Malvika Raghavan, Mr. Nakul Chaudhary, Mr. H.S. Mann

Manjit and Ors

Union of India and Anr

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the termination of a railway scheme.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for appointment in their respective cadres.

Filing Reason

The petitioners claimed entitlement to appointment under the LARSGESS Scheme.

Previous Decisions

Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered reconsideration of the scheme; Supreme Court directed the Union of India to make a conscious decision regarding the scheme.

Issues

Entitlement to relief under Article 32 despite scheme termination Validity of the LARSGESS Scheme under constitutional provisions

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for appointment based on the scheme Respondent contended that the scheme was terminated and unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the LARSGESS Scheme allowed for back door entry into service, which was contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution, and thus, the petitioners could not claim any rights under it.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. The Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme.

Procedural History

The petition was filed under Article 32; previous orders from the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court directed reconsideration and termination of the scheme.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 32, Article 14, Article 16
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Forest Service Seniority Dispute — Upholds Seniority Rules.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against Detention Order Under Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act — Validity of Detention Affirmed.