The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality. Dismissing the plea of a peon seeking promotion based on past irregular promotions, the Court ruled that wrongful actions cannot form the basis of a claim under the constitutional guarantee of equality.
The case, Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13984 of 2023), was decided by a bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, who scrutinized decades-long litigation involving procedural lapses and statutory violations by the State of Odisha.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Jyostnamayee Mishra, employed as a peon in Odisha’s Public Works Department since 1978, sought promotion to the post of Tracer, a position designated under the Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (1979 Rules). The dispute arose after the petitioner claimed discriminatory treatment, alleging that similarly situated employees had been promoted to the position of Tracer despite statutory provisions mandating direct recruitment for the role.
Despite multiple representations and rounds of litigation—spanning over three decades—the petitioner’s plea for promotion was consistently rejected. The High Court of Orissa had earlier dismissed her plea in 2022, holding that her claim was not supported by the applicable statutory framework.
Legal Issues Considered
1. Eligibility for Promotion:
The primary issue was whether the petitioner, a Class-IV employee, could be promoted to the post of Tracer when the 1979 Rules explicitly mandated that all such vacancies be filled through direct recruitment.
2. Discrimination and Article 14:
The petitioner contended that earlier promotions of two similarly placed employees to the post of Tracer constituted discrimination under Article 14. The Court had to decide whether such past irregular promotions could justify her claim.
3. Procedural Compliance:
The Court examined whether the recruitment process adhered to the statutory requirements, including public advertisements and competitive examinations.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Delivering the judgment, Justice Rajesh Bindal underscored the importance of adhering to statutory rules in public employment. The Court noted that Rule 5(1)(e) of the 1979 Rules categorically required that all posts of Tracer be filled through direct recruitment and not promotion. The Court further highlighted the failure of State authorities to follow these rules in earlier promotions, which were termed “illegal.”
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim, the Court observed:
“Article 14 does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. If some other similarly situated persons have been granted relief inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to claim the same relief.”
Citing its earlier ruling in R. Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO (2022), the Court held that perpetuating past irregularities would undermine the rule of law.
Criticism of State’s Conduct
The judgment also criticized the State of Odisha for its handling of the case, highlighting decades of bureaucratic inefficiency and legal lapses. The Court noted that proper application of the 1979 Rules at the outset could have avoided unnecessary litigation:
“This lackadaisical approach by the State has not only caused avoidable litigation but also created false hopes for employees by not adhering to statutory provisions.”
The Court directed a copy of the judgment to be sent to the Chief Secretary of Odisha to ensure compliance with statutory rules and to prevent similar instances in the future.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Jyostnamayee Mishra, concluding that her claim for promotion to the post of Tracer was without merit. The Court ruled that:
1. Promotion Not Permissible: The Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (1979 Rules) explicitly require that all posts of Tracer must be filled by direct recruitment, as stipulated under Rule 5(1)(e). Promotion from the petitioner’s cadre (peon) to the position of Tracer was not permitted under the rules.
2. No Negative Equality: The petitioner’s argument that earlier promotions of two similarly situated employees to the post of Tracer constituted discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution was rejected. The Court stated that Article 14 does not support “negative equality,” meaning that an earlier wrongful act cannot justify further illegal actions.
3. Procedural Violations: The Court emphasized that recruitment for the post of Tracer required adherence to statutory procedures, including public advertisement and competitive examination under Rule 7 of the 1979 Rules. The petitioner failed to establish that these procedures were followed.
4. State’s Responsibility: The Court criticized the State of Odisha for failing to follow the statutory rules and for allowing earlier irregular promotions, which created false expectations for the petitioner. It directed the Chief Secretary of Odisha to take corrective measures to prevent such procedural lapses in the future.
