PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. MALKAIT SINGH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 329

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, B.N. SRIKRISHNA

Case summary

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. MALKAIT SINGH.pdf

Judgment text

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. MALKAIT SINGH OCTOBER I I, 2004 [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B. N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ. J Service law : Appointment-Rehabilitation offamilies displaced by acquisition C? ftheir land for power project-Name of one member offamily included in list of persons recommended for appointment in the project on priority basis- Subsequent change in policy for such appointment making him ineligible- Thereafter a new post created-Held; He was not entitled to appointment to the new post as inclusion in select list did not vest any right in him and there was no question ofapplying the subsequently changed policy retrospectively- It was especially so as he had also got compensation for his land-Jn absence ofanything showing mala fide against him or that he was deliberately denied the appointment, it could not be held that he was discriminated against.

Appellant-Board, for setting up a power project, acquired land inclusive of a tract of land less than two acres in size belonging to respondent,. and paid compensation to all land owners thereof. With a view to rehabilitate persons who lost their lands because of acquisition, the appellant on 18. 7. 1994 decided to provide employment on rriority basis to one member of their family. Respondent was one of the persons whose name was included in the list of persons recommended for employment. Number of people whose names were recommended were appointed against available vacancies. However, on 15. 5. 1998 and 2. 6. 1998, the appellant revised its policy in that only those whose lands acquired were more than two acres would be considered for benefit of employment on priority basis. It was also decided that no relaxation regarding qualification or age would be given in future. By office Order of appellant dated 1. 7.

1998, a post of Homeopathic Physician was created and committee constituted for selecting a suitable candidate for the same. Pursuant to this Officer Order, a letter was addressed to District Employment Officer asking to give suitable candidates for the said posts. Aggrieved by this letter, respondent filed a writ petition for quashing it with direction for his appointment to the post of Homeopathic Physician. High court allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. / "·/. Appellant inter alia contend st covered by the scheme. In view of what is stat_ed above and having regard to all aspects of the matter, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the appeal is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, it is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. No costs. v. s. Appeal allowed.