New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday rejected RJD chief and former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav’s plea seeking quashing of the CBI FIR in the alleged land-for-jobs case, saying the plea was “devoid of merit”. The order was passed by Justice Ravinder Dudeja, allowing the investigation and related proceedings to effectively continue.The petition challenged the FIR registered on May 18, 2022, three chargesheets filed in 2022, 2023 and 2024 and the orders through which cognizance was taken. However, the court rejected all the grounds raised by Yadav and concluded that there was no legal basis to intervene at this stage.Yadav had argued that the entire proceedings were invalid due to lack of prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appearing on his behalf, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the alleged acts took place during Yadav’s tenure as Railway Minister between 2004 and 2009 and hence were part of his official duties, making prior approval mandatory before any investigation.Opposing the plea, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for CBI, argued that no such approval was required. He said that decisions regarding appointments are taken by General Managers rather than directly by the Minister, and thus protection under Section 17A would not apply.The HC had earlier heard detailed arguments from both the sides and allowed time for written arguments before delivering its verdict.The case pertains to alleged irregular appointments to Group D posts in the West Central Zone of the Indian Railways based at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. The CBI has alleged that Yadav’s family members or associates were given jobs in return for transferred land parcels.The FIR names several accused, including Yadav, his wife, two daughters, unidentified public officials and private individuals.In his petition, Yadav also cited a significant delay, noting that the FIR was filed almost 14 years after the alleged incidents, while the earlier investigation was closed with a report submitted before a competent court. He argued that reopening the case without disclosing these closure reports is an abuse of process.The petition further claimed that the investigation was politically motivated and his right to a fair investigation was violated, reiterating that the absence of approval under Section 17A made the proceedings void ab initio.Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the petition lacked merit, clearing the way for the case to proceed further.