Case Name: Jyostnamayee Mishra v. The State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.13984 OF 2023
Date of Judgment: January 20, 2025
Quorum: Rajesh Bindal, J., and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
INTRODUCTION:
This case concerns the claim by Jyostnamayee Mishra who asked for the promotion to the post of Tracer under the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979. This case focuses on the question whether a post reserved for direct recruitment can be claimed through promotion. The errors in following the due procedure and the incorrect application of rules resulted in adding the problems in the resolution of this case and caused prolonged litigation.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Jyotinamayee Mishra worked as a Poen in the Odisha Government since 1978. In January 1999, she applied for the promotion to the Tracer post. The recruiters did not accept her request and stated the reason that the post of Tracer could only be filled through direct recruitment. She filed a case before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, the tribunal directed the concerned authorities to consider her representation but her claim was rejected on the grounds on requirement of direct recruitment for the post of Tracer. She sought the remedy of her petition from various courts and contended that two other employees Lalatendu Rath and Jhina Rani Mansingh who were promoted to the Tracer post did not comply with the statutory rules of Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service 1979 but they were promoted to the post of Tracer Post. She argued that this is a discriminatory practice and that promotion of two other employees set a precedent and she also deserve the same treatment in this situation.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether employees can be promoted to the post under the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 which is reserved only for direct recruitment.?
- Whether the petitioner was qualified for the post of Tracer under the 1979 Rules?
- Whether the actions of the recruiters constitute violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and causes discrimination against the petitioner?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979
Rule 5(1)(e): All Tracer posts under Category I, II, III are required to be filled by direct recruitment.
Rule 7: It specifies the procedure for direct recruitment which includes advertisement and competitive exams.
Indian Constitution
Article 14: It is a fundamental rights article under Indian Constitution and ensures the promotion of equality and prohibits discrimination.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER
It is contended that the petitioner is qualified for the post of Tracer as she has completed a three- month Tracer Training Course in 1997. The two other employees, Lalatendu Rath and Jhina Rani Mansingh were promoted to Tracer post and this amounts to the discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. She also challenged the inconsistent application of ules and failure to follow the Rule 7 of the procedural rules which has resulted in unfair treatment against her.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT
It is contended that the petitioner does not meet the eligibility mentioned in the 1979 Rules for the concerned post because she was required to have either two years of tracing experience or a Draftsmanship certificate from an Industrial Training Institute (ITI). The respondent argued that the petitioner’s training course does not meet these requirements. They also argued that the promotion of these two employees mentioned by petitioner was a procedural error and show not be used as a justification for violating the rules of recruitment. They pointed out that invalid acts should not be used as a defence to claim equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court examined the provisions mentioned in 1979 Rules and held that Rule 5(1) (e) and Rule 7 stated that the post of Tracer to be filled though the direct recruitment which means through the public advertisement or through competitive exams, The claim of petitioner is contradictory to the requirement of the statutory rules and hence cannot be entertained by the Court. The Court also noted that the promotion of two other employees was not valid and there were procedural irregularities in the promotion. The court cited the case of Basawaraj v Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) and held that the “perpetuation of illegal acts under the pretext of equality” is not permissible.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court dismissed the claim of petitioner and held that her request of promotion is against the rules of 1979 Act. It upheld the High Court’s decision to set aside the order of Tribunal and held that the orders of Tribunal was based on incomplete information and hence impermissible.
CONCLUSION
This judgement shows the importance of following the statutory rules and the procedural errors cannot be used to get the relief from court. The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Odisha to take the corrective steps to improve the administrative process in the state to prevent the similar cases from propping again. This case shows the judiciary’s commitment to do justice through following the correct procedural norms and rejecting the irregularities in the procedure. This court has also attempted to balance fundamental rights of equality with the unjust use of the administrative system’s fallacies.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY MUSKAN
