The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking railway jobs under the land-loser quota, holding that acquisition of private land does not automatically create an enforceable right to public employment. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ruled that public appointments must comply with constitutional requirements of equal opportunity and transparent selection.
Background
The petition was filed by Zareena Akhter and Tanveer Ahmad Wani, whose families' land was acquired for the construction of a railway yard and workshop at Ompora, Budgam.
Zareena Akhter's family claimed that her brother had earlier been considered for a Trackman position under the land-loser quota but was declared medically unfit in 2009. A fresh medical examination in 2018 also found him unfit. The family subsequently submitted Zareena's name for consideration after receiving a communication from the railway authorities in 2012. However, her claim remained unresolved.
Tanveer Ahmad Wani's father had allegedly lost land during 1999–2000. The petitioners claimed that his father's name appeared in an earlier selection list but that he could not join service because of age and educational limitations. Tanveer's documents were subsequently submitted for consideration in 2023.
The petitioners argued that similarly situated land losers had received railway employment and alleged discriminatory treatment. They sought formal engagement orders and retrospective consideration of their claims.
The railway authorities opposed the petition, stating that the earlier land-loser appointment policy had been withdrawn by the Railway Board in 2019. Under the revised arrangement, affected families were to receive a lump-sum payment of ₹5 lakh.
They further argued that Zareena's case was received in 2023, while Tanveer's claim came nearly 23 years after the land acquisition. According to the respondents, neither petitioner had established an enforceable right to appointment under the withdrawn policy.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that acquiring land for a public purpose does not automatically entitle the affected landowner or family members to government employment. Any appointment must have a valid legal basis under the applicable policy and constitutional framework.
The Court observed:
"A writ of mandamus can be issued only where the petitioner establishes a subsisting legal right."
The Court further noted that submitting a representation or forwarding a candidate's name does not automatically establish an entitlement to appointment after the governing policy has been withdrawn.
On the petitioners' discrimination argument, the Court held that merely pointing to appointments granted to other land losers was insufficient without establishing that those cases were identical and governed by the same applicable instructions.
The Court also examined Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, emphasising that public employment requires fairness, transparency and equal opportunity for all eligible candidates.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2) and State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, the High Court stressed that public appointments cannot bypass the prescribed recruitment process.
It observed:
"A claim to public employment cannot be kept alive indefinitely."
The High Court concluded that neither petitioner had established a subsisting legal right to appointment under the withdrawn land-loser policy. It also found insufficient material to establish unlawful discrimination or a legally enforceable obligation on the railway authorities to issue engagement orders.
Accordingly, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal dismissed the writ petition along with all connected applications on October 30, 2026.
