JYOSTNAMAYEE MISHRA vs THE STATE OF ODISHA, 2025
Case Title and Citation: JYOSTNAMAYEE MISHRA V. THE STATE OF ODISHA 2025 INSC 87 (Dated: 20 January 2025)
Factual Background
The petitioner, Jyostnamayee Mishra, was initially appointed as a Peon in 1978. In January 1999, she submitted a request for appointment to the position of Tracer. When her representation was pending, she approached the Tribunal, which directed the State to make a decision. In response, the State informed the petitioner in July 1999 that the post of Tracer was not a promotional position and would be filled only through direct recruitment. Despite this clarification, the petitioner initiated subsequent legal proceedings claiming discriminatory treatment in promotions. In the third round of litigation, the Tribunal directed the State to appoint/promote her as a Tracer, and if no vacancy existed, to revert the last person who had been promoted. The State challenged these directions before the High Court, arguing that the petitioner was ineligible under the relevant rules. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders. Aggrieved by the High Court’s judgment, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
- Whether an employee is legally entitled to claim promotion to a post that is statutorily reserved exclusively for direct recruitment.
- Whether vacancies designated for direct recruitment can be legally filled using internal circulars within the department instead of adhering to the mandatory public advertisement procedure.
- Whether prior instances where the department granted wrongful promotions justify granting similar relief to the petitioner under the Constitutional Right to Equality (Article 14).
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, upholding the decision of the High Court. The Court determined that the petitioner’s claim for promotion was without merit because the post of Tracer was designated entirely for direct recruitment under the relevant statutory rules.
Reason for the decision
The Supreme Court provided the following reasons for dismissing the appeal:
- Exclusivity of Direct Recruitment: Rule 5(1)(e) of the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (“1979 Rules”), specifies that all posts of Tracers must be filled 100% by direct recruitment. Since the post of Tracer was explicitly excluded from Rule 6, which governs promotions, promotion was not a legally sanctioned route for appointment. Permitting an employee to seek promotion to a post reserved for direct recruitment violates fair selection principles.
- Mandatory Public Advertisement: The Court affirmed that government agencies are constitutionally obligated to fill direct recruitment posts through public advertisements in the local media and the official Gazette, as mandated by Rule 7 of the 1979 Rules. Using only internal circulars to invite applications from existing employees bypasses the necessary open selection procedure and violates the guarantee of equal opportunity in public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution.
- No Negative Equality: The contention that the petitioner deserved promotion because two other Peons were previously promoted to Tracer was rejected. The Court emphasized that Article 14 does not recognize negative equality; consequently, a court cannot sanction the repetition of past illegal or unlawful conduct. Previous erroneous promotions do not establish a precedent or confer a right to demand similar unlawful benefits.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the petitioner’s claim for promotion to the post of Tracer lacked merit as the position was governed by the 1979 Rules, which mandate 100% direct recruitment. The Court strongly criticized the State authorities for their casual approach to litigation, noting that the State failed across three rounds of litigation before the Tribunal and one before the High Court to properly cite the relevant 1979 Rules, thereby generating unnecessary and avoidable legal battles.
