IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11473 of 2007 1. BALUSAHI SINGH Son of Late Chandeshwar Singh, 2. Bechan Singh, son of Late Chandeshwar Singh, 3. Arun Kumar son of Jagdeo Singh. All residents of village Nishibichak, Police Station Fatuha, District Patna. . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, through Chairman, Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Manager, Hajipur Railway Zone, Hajipur. 3. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, (H.R.D.)-cum-Chief Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur. 4. Divisional Manager, Railway, Danapur. 5. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna. 6. Additional Collector, Patna. 7. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Patna. 8. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna. 9. Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City. 10. The Circle Officer, Fatuha. . . . . Respondents. ----------- 4/ 12.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Railways. The petitioners pray for direction to the respondent Railways to appoint them in lieu of acquisition of their land. Petitioners submit that more than 20 decimals of land of each of the petitioners were acquired by the East Central Railway for construction of Railway shed of Fatuha Railway Station. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that it would appear from letter dated 30.07.1990 of General Manager that there was a policy of the Ministry of Railway that families who are displaced physically due to acquisition of their houses, or whose livelihood is materially affected by the acquisition of land can be considered for jobs at the rate of one per family. Similarly lands of many others were acquired in the year 1990. The petitioners state that names of such displaced persons were sought from the District Administration by the Railways. Pursuant to - 2 - the letter of the Railways, the District Administration recommended the name of other displaced persons including that of petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the District Administration vide Annexure-7, recommended the name of petitioners and others for consideration of appointment. The grievance of the petitioners is that though Railways appointed some of the displaced persons, they did not appoint the petitioners on the ground that they were not passed Class VIII. According to Railways, circular no. R.B.E. No. 277 /98 stipulates that minimum educational qualification for recruitment of Group ‘D’ post would be Class VIII passed. Petitioners submit that the aforesaid circular would not bind them, as the aforesaid policy came subsequently and their land were acquired in 1990, much prior to the coming of the policy of 1998. They assert that some of the displaced persons, who have not passed Class VIII, as mentioned in Annexure- 7, have also been given employment. Counsel for the Railways submits that Annexure-7, is a private list prepared by the petitioners. In absence of any proof, the same cannot be relied upon. He submits that as per the 1998 policy, the minimum qualification for employment is Class VIII passed. After hearing the counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that more than 20 decimals of land of each of the petitioners were acquired for construction of Railway goods shed at Fatuha Railway Station. The petitioners do not have any other source of livelihood other than their land. The Railways sought from District - 3 - Administration, the name of the persons, who were displaced of their lands. The name of the petitioners figured in the list of names of persons displaced by such land acquisition. The District Administration recommended the name of petitioners for consideration of recruitment alongwith other persons, as contained in Annexures-4 and 5. It would appear from Annexure-1, issued by Chief Engineer (Survey) for General Manager, Railways bearing letter no. CE/Con/L/175 dated 30.07.1990 addressed to Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna that the Ministry of Railway has taken a policy decision to consider giving jobs at the rate of one per family, who have been displaced due to land acquisition. It would further appear from the aforesaid letter that Railway Ministry has not imposed any minimum educational qualification for providing jobs to a member of the family, whose land has been acquired. It has only imposed a restriction that only one person in the family would be entitled to job and such acquisition of land should materially affect the livelihood of the family. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners satisfied both the requirements. The respondent Railway Ministry, as such erred in rejected the claim of the petitioners pursuant to requirement of minimum qualification of Class VII pass, as provided in the Railway Board’s letter no. E (W) 98 ED2-9 dated 04.12.1998. The aforesaid policy, which is a subsequent policy, would not govern the case of the petitioners, rather the same would be covered by the policy contained in letter dated 30.07.1990 of Chief Engineer (Survey), issued for - 4 - General Manager, Railways. In view of the above, I direct the Railways particularly respondent no.2 (Chief Manager, Hajipur Railway Zone, Hajipur) to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment in view of its own letter bearing No. CE/Con/L/175 dated 30.07.1990 of General Manager, Railways addressed to Secretary, Revenue & Land Reform, Government of Bihar, Patna containing policy of recruitment prevalent then, as contained in Annexure-1. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)