SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition seeking railway jobs for two families whose land was acquired for the construction of a railway yard and workshop at Ompora in Budgam, holding that land acquisition does not, by itself, create an enforceable right to public employment.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the writ petition on October 30, observed that the petitioners had failed to establish any subsisting legal entitlement to appointment under the erstwhile land-loser policy, which was withdrawn by the Railway Board in 2019.
The court further held that the earlier policy, which provided for employment to landowners in lieu of land acquisition without an open competitive selection process, was inconsistent with the constitutional requirements of equality of opportunity under Articles 14 and 16.
“Once the policy itself is found to be inconsistent with the constitutional scheme, the petitioners cannot derive any enforceable right merely on the basis of their alleged eligibility thereunder,” the court observed.
The petition was filed by Zareena Akhter, 35, daughter of Abdul Gaffar Paul, and Tanveer Ahmad Wani, 25, son of Abdul Ahad Wani, both residents of Ompora, Budgam. They had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking directions to the Railway authorities to issue formal engagement orders in their favour under the land-loser quota, along with retrospective consideration on the lines of other similarly situated families.
The petitioners submitted that approximately four kanals of land belonging to the family of Akhter and one kanal belonging to Wani’s father had been acquired for the construction of the railway yard and workshop at Ompora.
They contended that, apart from payment of compensation, the Railway authorities had been providing employment to eligible members of families whose land was acquired for the project.
In Akhter’s case, her brother had initially been considered for appointment as a Trackman and was found suitable during a screening conducted on August 12, 2009. However, he was subsequently declared medically unfit for all categories through a communication dated October 28, 2009.
The matter was taken before the court of the Sub-Judge, Budgam, which directed a fresh medical examination on September 20, 2017. A newly constituted medical board again declared him unfit for all categories on February 14, 2018.
The petitioners further submitted that the Railway authorities, through a communication dated July 17, 2012, had advised Akhter’s father that another member of the family could be considered for appointment under the land-loser quota. Her name was accordingly forwarded for consideration.
However, despite a representation submitted on March 28, 2018, followed by the submission of the requisite documents, her claim was not finalised.
Wani’s case related to land belonging to his father, which was acquired in 1999–2000. The petitioners claimed that his father’s name figured at serial number 76 in a selection list published in the newspaper Srinagar Times.
They submitted that his father could not join service because he was illiterate and overage, following which Wani’s documents were submitted for consideration under the land-loser quota.
The Railway authorities, however, disputed the claim, maintaining that Wani’s case was received by the department only in 2023, nearly 23 years after the land acquisition.
The petitioners also relied upon a communication dated July 3, 2024, which, according to them, showed that 29 land-loser cases were under process in the Ferozepur Division.
Their counsel, Ahmad Javid, argued that the authorities could not abandon claims after initiating the process under the earlier policy. He maintained that Akhter’s case could not be treated as a fresh or belated claim because her brother had already been considered and the family had subsequently been advised to nominate another member.
He further argued that the withdrawal of the policy in 2019 could not automatically defeat claims that had originated or remained pending under the earlier arrangement.
Regarding Wani, the counsel sought examination of departmental records to establish whether his father’s name had earlier been considered for employment. He also alleged discriminatory treatment, submitting that other similarly placed land losers had received employment benefits.
Opposing the petition, the Railway authorities, represented by Central Government Counsel Faizan Ahmad Ganai, appearing in place of Deputy Solicitor General of India T.M. Shamsi, argued that the petitioners had no enforceable right to appointment.
The respondents submitted that the Railway Board had withdrawn the earlier land-loser employment policy in 2019 and replaced it with an arrangement providing for a lump-sum payment of five lakh rupees to affected families.
They maintained that Akhter’s brother had been declared medically unfit even after a second medical examination and that her own case was received only in 2023, after the policy had been withdrawn.
In Wani’s case, the respondents disputed the alleged earlier consideration of his father’s claim and argued that the matter had been raised after an inordinate delay.
The Railway authorities also maintained that the appointment of other land losers under the previous policy did not create an automatic right for the petitioners. They further questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the dispute concerning a Central Government establishment ought to have been taken before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Examining the rival submissions, Justice Nargal held that the acquisition of land by the State or its instrumentalities does not automatically entitle the affected landowner or family members to public employment.
The court observed that an appointment could be claimed only on the basis of a subsisting legal right arising from the governing policy or statutory framework.
It further held that the mere submission of a representation, forwarding of a candidate’s name or pendency of a claim did not create an indefeasible right to appointment after the policy governing such appointments had ceased to operate.
On Akhter’s claim, the court noted that her brother had twice been declared medically unfit and that the communication advising the family to nominate another member could not, by itself, be treated as a binding assurance of appointment.
The judge observed that the petitioners had failed to establish that her subsequent claim was protected under any applicable saving or transitional provision.
Regarding Wani, the court held that the newspaper publication allegedly containing his father’s name in a selection list did not establish that a final appointment order had been issued or that Wani had consequently acquired a right to appointment as his substitute.
The court also found that the communication referring to 29 land-loser cases under process in the Ferozepur Division did not establish that the petitioners’ claims had been approved or that the Railway authorities were legally bound to issue engagement orders.
Rejecting the plea of discrimination, the court held that a general assertion that other land losers had been appointed could not establish a right to similar treatment without demonstrating that their cases were identical in material respects and governed by the same applicable instructions.
“The principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution mandates fair and non-arbitrary State action; it does not, however, confer a right to claim a benefit contrary to the governing policy merely because such benefit may have been extended to others,” the judgment stated.
The court also examined the constitutional validity of the employment arrangement under the erstwhile policy, observing that public appointments must follow a fair, transparent and open selection process, providing equal opportunities to all eligible candidates.
It referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty (2011), which emphasised that public employment cannot be granted by bypassing the constitutional requirements of Articles 14 and 16.
Referring to the earlier policy, the court observed that it provided a separate route into public employment for landowners without requiring an open competitive selection process or giving other eligible candidates an opportunity to compete.
“The acquisition of land, howsoever genuine the claim for compensation may be, cannot furnish an independent basis for appointment to a public post in disregard of the constitutional requirements governing public employment,” Justice Nargal observed.
The court added that even if the petitioners were assumed to have fulfilled the eligibility conditions under the withdrawn policy, that alone would not confer upon them a right to appointment.
It further noted that the petitioners had failed to establish their entitlement before the competent authorities or before the High Court despite the passage of several years since the acquisition of the land.
Concluding that neither petitioner had established an enforceable right to appointment or a corresponding public duty on the part of the Railway authorities, the court dismissed the writ petition along with all connected applications.
The judgment was reserved on October 13 and pronounced on October 30, 2026.
