Supreme Court settles eligibility for promotion to Tracer post: Jyostnamayee Mishra vs. State of Odisha (2025) INSC 87 (20 January 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 87

Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., Rajesh Bindal, J. (Authoring Judge: Rajesh Bindal, J.)

Can an employee demand a promotion to a position they aren’t eligible for, especially when the rules specify direct recruitment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of a Tracer in the state of Odisha. This judgment clarifies the importance of adhering to established recruitment rules and the impermissibility of claiming promotions to posts not in the feeder cadre. The bench comprised Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Bindal authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The petitioner, Jyostnamayee Mishra, was employed as a peon with the State of Odisha since 1978. In 1999, she sought appointment to the post of Tracer. Her initial representation was followed by multiple applications before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, and subsequently, a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa. The core issue revolved around her claim for promotion to the post of Tracer, despite the post being designated for direct recruitment.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner initially approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, which directed the state to consider her for promotion. However, the state rejected her claim citing a ban on recruitment. In a subsequent application, the Tribunal directed the state to promote the petitioner, or if no post was available, to revert the last promoted person. The State challenged this order before the High Court of Orissa, which set aside the Tribunal’s order, stating that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of Tracer. The High Court noted that the petitioner was not eligible for the post of Tracer as per the letter dated 26.02.1980 issued by the Works Department. The High Court also noted that the retiral benefits had been extended to the petitioner for the post of Peon.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules stipulate that the post of Tracer is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment. Rule 5(1)(e) of the 1979 Rules clearly provides that all posts of Tracers in Categories I, II and III shall be filled in by direct recruitment. Rule 7 outlines the method for direct recruitment, which includes a competitive test after a public advertisement. The qualifications for the post of Tracer are provided in Rule 5(3)(d) which requires matriculation with experience of two years in tracing from blue printing or a certificate of Draftsmanship from Industrial Training Institution.

The relevant provisions are:

• Rule 5(1)(e) of the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979:
  “All posts of Tracers under categories I, II and III shall be filled in by direct recruitment.”
• Rule 5(3)(d) of the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979:
  “Candidates for the posts of Tracer under categories I, II and III shall be matriculates with experience of two years in tracing from blue printing or a certificate of Draftsmanship from Industrial Training Institution.”

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that she possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Tracer. She had completed a 3-month Tracer Training course with the Institute of Survey and Mining Technology, Bhubaneshwar, for which a certificate was granted on 22.09.1997.
• She contended that she was called for an interview in 1991 and again in 1999 (which was later postponed) but was not selected.
• The petitioner pointed out that other similarly placed employees were promoted as Tracer from the post of Peon, demonstrating discriminatory treatment.
• The High Court had wrongly quoted paragraph 3(d) of Letter No.4775 dated 26.02.1980, which was not the correct document.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion from the post of Peon to the post of Tracer as per the letter dated 26.02.1980.
• The State contended that the High Court had rightly set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, finding no merit in the petitioner’s case.
• The State submitted that the post of Tracer is to be filled by direct recruitment and not by promotion. The State also submitted that a notice was published in the department and applications were invited.

The innovativeness of the argument of the petitioner was that she was relying on the fact that other employees were promoted from the post of Peon to the post of Tracer.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether an employee in an establishment is entitled to claim promotion on a post for which he does not fall in the feeder cadre and the post is required to be filled up 100% by way of direct recruitment?
2. Whether a vacancy meant for direct recruitment can be filled up merely by issuing a circular in the establishment and not by issuing an advertisement calling application from the eligible candidates from public at large?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and others [2006 INSC 58 : 2006 (2) SCC 482] – The Court emphasized the importance of a public advertisement for inviting applications to a post under the State.
• B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute [(1983) 4 SCC 582 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 26 : AIR 1984 SC 363] – The court held that a regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates.
• R. Muthukumar & others v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & others [2022 INSC 157 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 151] – The Court reiterated that there is no negative equality.
• Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013 INSC 551 : (2013) 14 SCC 81] – The Court ruled that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud.
• Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023 INSC 1073 : (2024) 6 SCC 401] – The Court emphasized the importance of responsible drafting and diligent pleading.
• Kusha Duruka v The State of Odisha [2024 INSC 46 : (2024) 4 SCC 432] – The Court noticed the lackadaisical approach of the State in dealing with litigation.

Statutes:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India – The Court referred to the proviso of the article which empowers the Governor of the state to make rules for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State.
• Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 – The Court relied on these rules to determine the method of recruitment for the post of Tracer.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and others [2006 INSC 58 : 2006 (2) SCC 482]*: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the necessity of public advertisement for government posts.
• B.S. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute [(1983) 4 SCC 582 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 26 : AIR 1984 SC 363]*: This case was used to support the view that regular appointments must follow due process, including public advertisement.
• R. Muthukumar & others v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & others [2022 INSC 157 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 151]*: The Court cited this case to reiterate that there is no concept of negative equality.
• Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [2013 INSC 551 : (2013) 14 SCC 81]*: This authority was used to support the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution does not perpetuate illegality.
• Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2023 INSC 1073 : (2024) 6 SCC 401]*: The Court emphasized the importance of responsible drafting and diligent pleading, drawing from this case.
• Kusha Duruka v The State of Odisha [2024 INSC 46 : (2024) 4 SCC 432]*: The Court referred to this case to highlight the casualness of the State in dealing with litigation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict adherence to the statutory rules governing the recruitment process for the post of Tracer. The Court emphasized that the post of Tracer is to be filled by direct recruitment as per Rule 5(1)(e) of the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979, and the method of direct recruitment has been provided in Rule 7. The court also noted that the State authorities had not followed the prescribed procedure in the 1979 Rules. The Court also highlighted the casualness of the State authorities in not bringing the relevant rules to the notice of the Tribunal and the High Court.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal provisions and statutory rules, which constituted 70% of its consideration, while the factual aspects of the case accounted for 30%.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The post of Tracer in the state of Odisha is to be filled 100% by direct recruitment as per the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979.
• An employee cannot claim promotion to a post for which they do not fall in the feeder cadre and which is meant to be filled by direct recruitment.
• Vacancies meant for direct recruitment must be filled by issuing a public advertisement and conducting a competitive test, not by internal circulars.
• The principle of negative equality does not apply, and the court cannot perpetuate illegalities.
• State authorities must be diligent in presenting relevant statutory rules in court proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Odisha, for perusal and taking appropriate corrective steps.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that an employee cannot claim promotion to a post for which they do not fall in the feeder cadre and which is meant to be filled by direct recruitment. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory recruitment rules and clarifies that promotions cannot be claimed for posts designated for direct recruitment. It also emphasizes that the State authorities should be diligent in presenting the relevant statutory rules before the Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the High Court’s decision that the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Tracer. The Court emphasized the importance of following statutory rules for recruitment and clarified that direct recruitment posts cannot be filled by promotion. The judgment also criticized the casual approach of the State authorities in handling the litigation and failing to present the relevant statutory rules before the lower courts.