Manjit and Others v. Union of India and Another
Background
The petitioners were wards of serving Railway employees who sought appointment under the "Larsgess Scheme," a Railway Administration policy that allowed certain wards of employees to be inducted into service without a competitive selection process. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier found this scheme problematic for bypassing merit-based selection required under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and on the Supreme Court's own direction in an earlier round of litigation, the Union of India reconsidered and ultimately terminated the scheme in March 2019. The petitioners nonetheless approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, seeking a mandamus directing the government to appoint them under the now-discontinued scheme.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Larsgess Scheme amounted to a "back door entry" into government service that was fundamentally inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16. Since the Union of India had already taken a considered decision to terminate the scheme, a decision the Court itself had earlier noted with approval, the petitioners could not claim either a vested right or a legitimate expectation of appointment under it. The Court held that granting the relief sought would effectively endorse an unconstitutional back-door appointment route.
Lesson Learnt
There is no vested right or legitimate expectation to appointment under a government scheme that bypasses open, competitive selection; courts will not revive or enforce such a scheme once it has been lawfully discontinued for being inconsistent with the constitutional right to equal opportunity in public employment.