A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Jyostnamayee Mishra v. The State of Odisha & Ors., SLP (C) No. 13984 of 2023 Supreme Court (J. Rajesh Bindal) 20 January 2025. The petitioner, a long-serving Peon appointed in 1978, sought appointment/promotional relief to the post of Tracer after repeated departmental requests and multiple proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The Tribunal directed consideration for promotion; the State resisted; two persons had earlier been promoted as Tracer purportedly from the Peon cadre.

The central legal questions were:

(i) whether a post which the relevant service rules require to be filled 100% by direct recruitment can be the subject of promotion claims by employees outside the feeder cadre and

(ii) whether a vacancy intended for direct recruitment may be filled internally by departmental circulars rather than by public advertisement as mandated.

The Court examined the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (the 1979 Rules) and held that all posts of Tracers under Categories I, II and III are to be filled by direct recruitment (Rule 5(1)(e)) and that the detailed method including publishing an advertisement in local newspapers and the Orissa Gazette and conducting written tests/viva voce is prescribed by Rule 7. As those procedures were not followed and the post is not a promotional post from Peon, the petitioner’s claim failed.

The Court also reiterated that Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit negative equality a litigant cannot seek to perpetuate an earlier departmental illegality (promotions granted in breach of rules). The judgment censures the State for casual, slipshod litigation management and directs administrative sobriety.

Keywords: Promotion; Direct recruitment; Peon; Tracer; Rule 5(1)(e), Rule 7; Article 14; Negative equality; Administrative casualness.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The petitioner, a Peon since 1978, sought appointment to Tracer through multiple representations and litigations spanning decades. After administrative correspondence and three rounds before the Administrative Tribunal (including O.A. Nos. 628/1999, 742/2009, 1696/2010) and a writ before the High Court, conflicting departmental actions produced inconsistent outcomes:

(a) communications indicating Tracer vacancies would be filled by interview but not by promotion from lower cadre;

(b) two persons promoted as Tracer by orders dated 28.06.1999; and

(c) a later Tribunal direction (08.01.2016) directing promotion/appointment of the petitioner against any vacancy, with reversion of the last promoted person if no vacancy existed.

The State obtained High Court relief setting aside the Tribunal orders; the matter reached the Supreme Court by SLP. The judicial task required strict statutory construction of the 1979 Rules to determine whether the Tracer post is promotional and whether administrative shortcuts (departmental circulars instead of public advertisement and competitive testing) could be validated. The Court had to balance statutory prescription against facts of earlier departmental deviations and claims of discrimination while policing the wider principle that courts will not perpetuate administrative illegality by ordering its replication.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner served as a Peon (appointed 1978) and repeatedly sought appointment to a vacant Tracer post by representations from 1990s onward. She filed O.A. before the Tribunal in 1999; the Tribunal directed disposal of her representation. The administration replied (05.07.1999) that Tracer posts were not promotional from lower categories and would be filled by interview. Later, two employees (Jhina Rani Mansingh and Lalatendu Rath) were promoted as Tracer by orders dated 28.06.1999 a fact the petitioner relied on to allege discrimination.

The petitioner pursued subsequent O.As and the Tribunal (27.09.2010) directed consideration of promotion alongside other Class-IV employees; the Chief Engineer rejected the representation (23.11.2010) citing a recruitment ban; the Tribunal again directed promotion consideration (08.01.2016). The State mounted a writ and succeeded at the High Court which set aside Tribunal orders; SLP followed. Crucially, the 1979 Rules properly notified by Gazette (No.4773 dated 26.02.1980) prescribe Tracer posts be filled entirely by direct recruitment and prescribe the method: public advertisement, written test and viva voce, merit list and probation. The record showed the statutory procedure under Rule 7 was not followed and that the parties (including the State) repeatedly failed to place and rely upon the authentic 1979 Rules in earlier proceedings, leading to litigation cascades.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the petitioner, a Peon outside the feeder cadre, is entitled to promotion to the post of Tracer when Rule 5(1)(e) of the 1979 Rules mandates 100% direct recruitment to that post?

ii. Whether a vacancy mandated for direct recruitment under Rule 7 can be filled by departmental circulars inviting internal applications instead of a public advertisement followed by competitive test?

iii. Whether previous irregular promotions (if any) can create an entitlement for similarly situated employees by virtue of Article 14 (claim of discrimination/negative equality)?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner’s counsel argued she met the requisite qualifications (a Tracer training certificate dated 22.09.1997 from Institute of Survey and Mining Technology, Bhubaneshwar) and had previously been called for interviews (1991; 16.03.1999). She relied on precedents and administrative practice where similarly placed Class-IV employees were considered and some promoted; thus denying her the same relief was discriminatory. The petitioner contended the typed departmental letter/notification as placed on record supported her eligibility and the Tribunal’s directions should be restored.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State contended the petitioner was ineligible for promotion under the authentic 1979 Rules because Rule 5(3)(d) prescribes specific qualifications matriculation with two years tracing experience or Industrial Training Institution certificate of draftsmanship and Rule 5(1)(e) prescribes filling Tracer posts solely by direct recruitment. The State asserted that selection was conducted via departmental notice and internal applications; therefore the petitioner’s claim lacked merit. The State also invoked administrative constraints (recruitment ban) at relevant times. Importantly, the official Gazette version of the 1979 Rules was produced to demonstrate the legal regime.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court scrutinised the record and reproduced the 1979 Rules verbatim to resolve discrepancies between a typed departmental letter (Annexure P-2) and the Gazette notification (No.4773). It found the petitioner’s annexures to contain major typographical omissions and mismatches such that reliance on them would mislead the Court. The statutory scheme demonstrates the Tracer posts across Categories I–III are to be filled only by direct recruitment (Rule 5(1)(e)) and the mode public advertisement in local newspapers and Orissa Gazette, written test and viva voce administered by the Chief Engineer in consultation with Government Architect is mandated by Rule 7. The record conceded that Rule 7 procedure was not followed; instead the department relied on circulars and ad hoc internal processes.

The Tribunal had directed remedial promotion, but because the State did not place the 1979 Rules before the Tribunal (and thus the Tribunal proceeded on incomplete information), the Tribunal’s orders were unsustainable. The High Court rightly set aside the Tribunal’s direction, and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP because to order appointment/promotional relief would effectively perpetuate departmental illegality. The Court held further that Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim negative equality where earlier unlawful benefits were given to some, courts will not require the administration to repeat illegality in favour of others. The Court censured the State for casual litigation management repeated failures to deploy the authentic Gazette rules in pleadings resulted in avoidable multiplicity of proceedings and uncertainty among employees. It recommended remedial administrative vigilance and forwarded a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, Odisha.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The dispositive legal principle is twofold:

(i) statutory recruitment schemes fixed by rules must be followed; where Rule 5(1)(e) prescribes 100% direct recruitment to Tracer posts and Rule 7 prescribes advertisement and competitive selection, those statutory steps cannot be bypassed by internal circulars or ad hoc promotions; and

(ii) Article 14 does not mandate negative equality courts will not perpetuate or validate an earlier administrative illegality by extending the same unlawful benefit to others.

Therefore, promotion claims by persons outside the feeder cadre for a post designated for direct recruitment cannot succeed, and judicial relief that would institutionalise illegality is denied.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court’s obiter emphasises professional obligations of State litigants and counsel: accurate pleadings, timely production of statutory material (Gazette notifications), and avoidance of litigation by administrative prudence. The judgment reiterates the duty of advocates to assist the Court by diligent verification and of public authorities to eschew casualness that leads to avoidable legal disputes. The Court also referred to precedents stressing the primacy of public advertisement and fair selection processes for State appointments.

c. GUIDELINES

1. Departments must place authentic statutory instruments (Gazette notifications) in all litigations touching service rules; reliance on typing drafts/letters is inadequate.

2. If a rule prescribes direct recruitment and sets out the selection method, the administration must issue public advertisement and follow the prescribed competitive process (written test, viva voce), with a merit list and probationary appointments as per rules.

3. Courts will not remedy or perpetuate administrative violations by directing benefits that would continue illegality; Article 14 cannot be a sword for negative equality.

4. State litigants should maintain high standards of drafting and factual disclosure; negligent litigation conduct may be commented upon or brought to the attention of executive heads for corrective administrative action.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The case highlights the primacy of rule-based recruitment in public employment and the judicial reluctance to validate or multiply administrative irregularities. The petitioner’s factual sympathy long service, trainings, prior interviews could not surmount the clear statutory bar that Tracer posts are exclusively for direct recruits and require advertisement and competitive selection under Rule 7. The judgment also functions as a cautionary administrative lesson: ad hoc internal procedures and casual litigation handling produce protracted disputes and undermine confidence in fair public employment processes.

From a doctrine perspective, the reiteration that Article 14 does not permit negative equality is instructive; courts will not convert a prior illegality into an equitable claim for others. For practitioners, the case underscores the necessity of producing authentic statutory materials (Gazette) and confronting service rules early in proceedings; for tribunals, the matter underlines the need for careful preliminary scrutiny of legal entitlement before issuing wide remedial directions affecting third parties. Finally, the Court’s administrative admonition to transmit the order to the Chief Secretary signals judicial impatience with systemic casualness and a nudge toward executive reform in litigation management.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 482 (importance of public advertisement and selection).
ii. R. Muthukumar & Others v. The Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO & Ors., 2022 INSC 157.
iii. Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 (negative equality principle cited).
iv. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 6 SCC 401 (professional diligence in pleadings).

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (Gazette Notification No.4773-E-IXR-1/80-E dated 26.02.1980) — Rule 3, Rule 5(1)(e), Rule 5(3)(d), Rule 6, Rule 7.