<p class="title">The Supreme Court has said that the government enjoyed unfettered freedom to change its policy, even in breach of its promise, to balance the overriding public interest.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta set aside the Kerala High Court's directions to the state government to provide employment to a large number of displaced workers who lost their earnings due to ban on 'arrack' on April 1, 1996.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“We are not in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court that a right of appointment accrued to the respondents and it matured into a Right to Life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. We disapprove the opinion of the High Court,” the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The high court had issued its directions in view of the promise by the state government to the workers of their re-employment after their agitation for rehabilitation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The promise held out by the government to provide employment to the displaced 'Abkari' workers had become an impossible task in view of the non-availability of vacancies. The decision taken in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance between the competing interest of the displaced workers and unemployed youth in Kerala,” the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The top court held that the change in policy cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. The expectation of the workers for consideration against the 25% of the future vacancies in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation was not legitimate, it said.</p>
<p class="title">The Supreme Court has said that the government enjoyed unfettered freedom to change its policy, even in breach of its promise, to balance the overriding public interest.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta set aside the Kerala High Court's directions to the state government to provide employment to a large number of displaced workers who lost their earnings due to ban on 'arrack' on April 1, 1996.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“We are not in agreement with the findings recorded by the High Court that a right of appointment accrued to the respondents and it matured into a Right to Life as provided in Article 21 of the Constitution. We disapprove the opinion of the High Court,” the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The high court had issued its directions in view of the promise by the state government to the workers of their re-employment after their agitation for rehabilitation.</p>.<p class="bodytext">“The promise held out by the government to provide employment to the displaced 'Abkari' workers had become an impossible task in view of the non-availability of vacancies. The decision taken in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance between the competing interest of the displaced workers and unemployed youth in Kerala,” the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The top court held that the change in policy cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. The expectation of the workers for consideration against the 25% of the future vacancies in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation was not legitimate, it said.</p>