Summary
The Supreme Court rejected demands for Railway appointments under the terminated LARSGESS scheme. The scheme enabled wards of serving employees to enter service without an open competitive selection consistent with equal opportunity. Its discontinuance was justified, and applicants could claim neither a vested right nor legitimate expectation under it. Earlier directions allowing representations did not warrant appointments contrary to the termination and subsequent closure of scheme-based claims.
Issues
- Whether applicants could compel appointments under LARSGESS after its termination, including on a claim of completed formalities or legitimate expectation.
Provisions considered
- Article 16, Constitution of IndiaThe scheme’s noncompetitive route into Railway employment was fundamentally inconsistent with equality of opportunity. Its termination did not leave the petitioners with an enforceable appointment claim. (¶¶ 2, 6, 7)
- Article 32, Constitution of IndiaThe Court declined to entertain the requested mandamus because it would grant appointments under a scheme already terminated consistently with the constitutional employment guarantee. (¶¶ 1, 6, 7, 8)
Held
- The Government had consciously terminated the scheme with effect from the date it was put on hold, and the Court’s subsequent order had recognized that it no longer existed. The petitioners could not obtain appointments through the former scheme. (¶¶ 3, 4, 6, 7)
- Neither a vested right nor legitimate expectation arose under this route to employment. The Court directed that claims based on the scheme be closed and rejected the present demand for mandamus. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The order was to be sent to the Railway Board Chairman for intimation and compliance. (¶ 8)
Result
Article 32 petition dismissed; termination of LARSGESS upheld as the basis for rejecting the appointment claims, with communication to the Railway Board directed.