Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 93 (MP)

Mahendra Singh v. Union of India

2025-02-06

SUBODH ABHYANKAR

body2025
ORDER 1. This order shall govern the disposal of Writ Petition Nos.15545/2023, 16142/2023, 16146/2023 and 16251/2023 as identical issue is involved in all the petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in WP No.15545/2023 are being taken for consideration. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- "I. Issue a writ, direction or order in the aur of mandamus or as deemed fit be issued to the Respondents railway to issue the necessary appointment letter in favour of petitioner No.1 in terms of the railway notification dated 17.12.2013 and 1.3.2017 for the appointment of. Petitioner no.1 land affected by land acquisition for Railway Project (Ramganj Mandi to Bhopal B.G. Railwayline); II. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or as deemed fit be issued to the concerned respondents to issue the necessary appointment letters in favour of the Petitioners upon giving notional benefit: from the date of acquisition; III. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or as deemed fit be issued to the transmit entire records of the case and on perusal thereof conscioriable justice - may be rendered; IV. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit be issued. V. This petition may kindly be allowed with costs." 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the residents of village Sultanpur, Post Moya, Tehsil and District Rajgarh (Biaora) and their land was acquired by the Western Central Raiway in the year 2010. In respect of the said acquisition, a notification was also issued by the Railways on 17.12.2013 providing that one person from the family whose land is acquired shall be provided appointment in the Railways. Pursuant to which, an application was also filed by the petitioners on 28.2.2014, however, no action was taken in respect of the same, and subsequently the compensation was also provided to the petitioners vide order dated 1.3.2017, which the petitioners also accepted. Thereafter, as the petitioners did not receive any information from the respondents regarding their application for employment, a fresh application was again filed on 18.4.2023, however, on this application also, no orders were passed and communicated to the petitioners, hence, the present petition has been filed. 4. Thereafter, as the petitioners did not receive any information from the respondents regarding their application for employment, a fresh application was again filed on 18.4.2023, however, on this application also, no orders were passed and communicated to the petitioners, hence, the present petition has been filed. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents kept the first application filed on 28.2.2014, pending for a considerable period of full time which led the petitioners to file a fresh application in the year 2023 and the same has still not been decided. Thus, the respondents may be directed to decide the petitioners application as per the policy. 5. The prayer is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4/Railways and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitions deserve to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches only as the cause of action arose to the petitioners in the year 2014 when they filed their application and thus, the petitioner cannot be entertained at the stage. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Para No.5 of the notification dated 17.12.2013 in which it is clearly provided that after accepting the applications, they will be scrutinized and the eligible candidate will be informed accordingly. Thus, it is submitted that since the applications filed by the petitioners were not found to be in-order, they were not informed as there was no mandate in the scheme to inform the petitioners whose applications have been rejected. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is made out. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed on record. 7. From the record, this Court finds that all the petitioners are resident of some remote villages of District Rajgarh (Biaora). It is also found that they had applied for employment as per the scheme dated 17.12.2013 on 28.2.2014, however, the fate of the aforesaid application was not conveyed to the petitioners on the pretext of condition No.5 of the notification, which reads as under:- ^^vkosnu i=¨a d¢ tek djus dh vafre frfFk d¢ ckn çkIr vkosnu i=¨a dh ik=rk gsrq NVuh dj vkxs dh çfØ;k d¢ ckjs esa ;¨X; vkosnd¨a d¨ lwfpr fd;k tkosxkA^^ 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid condition cannot be read in such a manner so as to exclude the information being provided to a candidate whose application is rejected. It is trite that the State is required to follow the transparent procedure in public employment and even if any application is rejected, the person whose application is rejected, is entitle to know the reason for such a rejection, and surprisingly, when this Court inquired from the counsel for the respondents as to why the applications of the petitioners have been rejected, it is informed that no such record is available with them and along with the reply also they have not filed any such documents demonstrating that the applications filed by the petitioners have been rejected. 9. In such facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners who are rustic villages cannot be deprived of their valuable right to claim employment after their land is acquired by the Railways, and merely if the monetary compensation is also provided to them on account of acquisition, it cannot be said that they cannot claim as a matter of right their employment under the scheme. In such circumstances, when they were also not informed regarding fate of their applications, this Court is inclined to direct the respondents No.2 to 4/Railways to decide the petitioners application afresh. 10. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of and it is directed that if fresh applications are filed by the petitioners to the respondents/competent authority within a period of two weeks time, the same shall be decided by the respondents/competent authority, in accordance with law as prescribed in the scheme dated 17.12.2013 within a further period of three months, and if any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, the same shall also be communicated to them. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. 12. Signed copy of this order be kept in WP No.15545/2023 and a copy whereof be placed in connected petitions.