Summary
Displaced arrack workers sought enforcement of an earlier rehabilitation policy reserving future daily-wage vacancies. The Court upheld the subsequent policy prioritising dependent sons of deceased workers. The earlier assurance created no indefeasible right to employment for every displaced worker, and the change was justified by scarce vacancies, competing employment claims and overriding public interest.
Issues
- Whether the earlier rehabilitation policy created a vested right or enforceable legitimate expectation of employment.
- Whether the revised policy was procedurally unfair, arbitrary or disproportionate.
Held
- Reservation of twenty-five per cent of future daily-wage vacancies was not an unequivocal promise to employ all displaced workers. No vested, indefeasible right to appointment arose. The later policy replaced the earlier assurance rather than leaving both obligations concurrently enforceable. (¶¶ 11, 34)
- Legitimate expectation cannot prevent a fair and reasonable policy change in overriding public interest. The shortage of vacancies and need to balance displaced workers’ claims with unemployed youth justified the modification and priority for bereaved families. (¶¶ 12, 17, 18, 19)
- Where a policy benefiting a large indeterminate class is withdrawn in overriding public interest, fairness does not invariably require an individual hearing for every affected person. An objectively and fairly exercised policy choice did not warrant interference on that ground here. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- Applying proportionality to the fundamental-rights challenge, the Court found the change rationally connected to its objectives and its effect not excessive. The earlier writ directing appointments of the listed dependent sons had not finally adjudicated the revised policy’s validity. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
Result
The State’s and Corporation’s appeals were allowed, rejecting the High Court’s direction to implement the earlier employment policy. The contempt petition was closed.