Case name: JYOSTNAMAYEE MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS
Case number: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.13984 OF 2023
Date: 20-01-2025
Quorum Rajesh Bindal, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This appeal before supreme court of India is against the order of the High Court dated 12.10.2022 passed in Writ Petition filed by the State where the high court set aside the order passed by the Tribunal dated 08.01.2016 in an application filed by the petitioner in the present case. This case involves the petitioner (jyostnamayee Mishra) is appointed as peon under the state of Odish since 1978. She sought for promotion to the post of tracer on the basis of her qualification she completed a 3 months tracer training course and also based on the past precedence where similar promotions were granted to the people with similar qualifications. The petitioner in the present case has filed for multiple rounds of litigation to seek justice for her promotion. In the year of 1999 the petitioner filed an initial representation which was rejected stating the post of tracer is not considered to be a promotional post. Secondly filed an application before the tribunal in the year 2010 which was denied due to the ban in recruitment by the governmental department. Later in 2016 a application before the tribunal ordered the promotion to be valid and it is in the favour of the petitioner in the present case but which was challenged before the high court as the appeal by the state and the wide order is dated on 12-10-2022 which set aside the order of the tribunal in confirming the promotion of the petitioner in the wide order dated 08-01-2016. Now the case is before the supreme court of India via special leave petition.
ISSUES
- Whether the employee from a non feeder cadre can seek promotion to the post of tracer?
- Whether the vacancies for direct recruitment can be filled based on the internal circular without any public advertisement?
- Whether the petitioner justified the claim by referring to the past promotion of similarly placed employees?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- ORISSA SUBORDINATE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE RULES, 1979
RULE 3 no official can be promoted unless they pass a departmental test and maintain a good service record
RULE 5(1)(e) states that 50% of vacancies for the architectural draftsman posts must be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% of vacancies are filled by promotion.
- ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS FOR APPELLANT
- The petitioner in the present case contended that she was eligible under the qualification prescribed in rule 5(3)(d) which specifies that people with two years of tracing experience or a draftsmanship certificate are eligible for the promotion. Here the petitioner has completed the three months tracing training course.
- The petitioner referred to the past similar promotions granted to two other employees of similar nature. This leads to the discriminatory treatment on the part of the petitioner.
- The petitioner relied on the irregularity of the department and reliance on the precedents of the similar case.
ARGUMENTS FOR RESPONDENT
- The respondent contended that the petitioner’s qualifications did not align with the procedures established with the statutory rules.
- As per the rule 5(1)(e) Orissa subordinate architectural service rules, 1979 emphasized that the post of tracer was strictly filled only through direct recruitment and not by the internal circular for the promotions.
- The petitioner’s claim is not clearly justified in contravention of clear statutory requirements.
ANALYSIS
- Statutory rules:
Rule 5(1)(e) Orissa subordinate architectural service rules, 1979 which mandated that all the post of tracer be filled only through direct recruitment, which explicitly nullifies any internal promotions unless and until it is explicitly permitted by the government notification.
- Mandated public advertisement:
According to the rule 7 Orissa subordinate architectural service rules, 1979 which necessitates the public notification ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process.t the internal circulars cannot replace the credibility of these legal requirements.
- Past promotion as precedent.
The supreme court observed that past promotions to the post of tracer is a clear violation of the statutory rules and it can be used as the reference to claim negative equality.
- Negligence on the part of state
There is a clear negligence on the part of the state in implementing the rules and mismanaged the litigation process which caused confusion and unnecessary delays.
JUDGMENT
The supreme court dismissed the petitioners claim on the two grounds
-
- The post of tracer is not considered to be a promotional post and it must be filed via direct recruitment.
- The court emphasized that the discriminatory practices and past illegal and violation will not amount to establishing legal entitlement.
CONCLUSION
The supreme court through this judgment reinforced the adherence to the statutory rules, under article 14 constitution of India the government emphasized that to claim equality it should be based on the perpetuated legal practices. This judgment serves as a reminder to the government authorities to know about their responsibility to ensure the lawful governance and diligent litigation conduct.
“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: MUTHULAKSHMI B
