A Peon's Pursuit: The Supreme Court's Rebuke of Odisha's Recruitment Failures


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: JYOSTNAMAYEE MISHRA vs. THE STATE OF ODISHA.

Citation: 2025 INSC 87 (Reportable)

Case Overview

The Supreme Court of India addressed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed by Jyostnamayee Mishra, a former peon in the Odisha state government, against a High Court order that had overturned a Tribunal’s decision in her favor. This case highlights a significant failure by the State of Odisha and its officials to adhere to established recruitment rules. The central issue was whether a Class-IV employee (peon) is entitled to promotion to the post of Tracer, which, according to relevant service rules, is meant to be filled through direct recruitment.

Factual Background

Jyostnamayee Mishra was appointed as a peon in 1978. Starting in 1999, she sought appointment as a Tracer, believing she was qualified for the position. Mishra filed multiple applications before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal over several years. Initially, the Tribunal directed the authorities to consider her case. Eventually, the Tribunal ordered her promotion to the post, and that if no vacancy was available, to revert the last promoted person. The State challenged this order in the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal’s order, stating that Mishra was not eligible for the post.

The case revealed significant discrepancies in the documents submitted by both Mishra and the State. Mishra initially presented a letter from the Works Department (No. 4775 dated 26.02.1980) as the governing service rules for the post, which was not the actual rule. The High Court also referred to this letter as the relevant governing document, without recognizing the proper statutory rules. The actual governing rules are the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (notified on 25.07.1980 as notification No. 4773-E-IXR-1/80-E, under Article 309 of the Constitution). These rules, which were brought to the Court's attention by the counsel for the State, though the state did not do so diligently before the Tribunal or the High Court, were reproduced in the judgment. The judgment highlights significant discrepancies between the statutory rules and the letter presented, including missing content, repeating paragraphs and incorrectly typed information.

Statutory Rules and Recruitment Method

The 1979 Rules clearly state that all posts of Tracers in Categories I, II, and III are to be filled by direct recruitment and not by promotion. Rule 5(1)(e) explicitly states this requirement. Rule 7 outlines the competitive test and advertisement requirements for direct recruitment. According to Rule 7, direct recruitment requires a competitive test conducted by the Chief Engineer, Roads & Buildings, after issuing an advertisement in local newspapers and the Orissa Gazette. The state had not followed this procedure. The only attempts made to fill vacancies were by issuing a circular internally within the department, instead of advertising and calling for applications from the public. The state authorities failed to point out the 1979 rules at any point before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner's Arguments

Mishra argued that she possessed a certificate of Tracer Training from the Institute of Survey and Mining Technology, Bhubaneshwar, which she claimed was equivalent to the qualification for tracer as mentioned in the letter of the Works Department. She also cited that other peons had been promoted to Tracer, claiming discrimination because she was not. She argued that she was called for an interview in 1991, and again in 1999, but was not successful, and therefore should be promoted.

High Court's Error

The High Court erred by referring to the letter from the Works Department as the controlling rule and failing to recognize the statutory nature of the 1979 Rules. It incorrectly cited paragraph 3(d) of the letter instead of consulting the actual rules and didn't investigate the process for recruitment to the post of tracer.

State's Conduct

The Supreme Court criticized the State for its casual approach to the litigation. The State failed to present the relevant 1979 Rules at any stage before the Tribunal or the High Court. The State also relied on an erroneous document (the letter dated 26.02.1980), and did not conduct a public advertisement for the Tracer position, violating the established procedure for recruitment. The Court noted that the State’s conduct contributed to multiple rounds of litigation and unnecessary cost to the justice system. The Court also noted that the State created false hopes in the mind of the petitioner when other similarly situated persons were illegally promoted. The Court emphasized the state's responsibility to act diligently and not encourage litigation due to its own wrong actions.

Rejection of Negative Equality

The Court rejected the petitioner's claim of discrimination due to the earlier promotion of other peons as Tracers, stating that the Court cannot "put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same". The Court clarified that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution does not envisage "negative equality", meaning that if some individuals were wrongly promoted in the past, that doesn’t establish a right for others to receive the same illegal benefit. The court referenced the case R. Muthukumar & others v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & others (2022 INSC 157 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 151) to further outline this principle.

Supreme Court's Decision and Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed Mishra's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court emphasized that the post of Tracer must be filled by direct recruitment as per the 1979 Rules. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Odisha, for "perusal and taking appropriate corrective steps". This was due to the "lackadaisical approach of the State" in litigation and to address the issue of state institutions acting contrary to the rules. The Court directed the State to ensure adherence to the rules in future.

Rationale, reasoning given by the Judges

The Supreme Court's reasoning centered on the primacy of statutory rules over departmental practices and the importance of following due process in recruitment. The Court noted that the 1979 Rules clearly stipulated that the post of Tracer was to be filled by direct recruitment only. This made any promotion to that post illegal, regardless of past practices. The Court emphasized that the state must ensure that all recruitment must be done through a transparent process, by inviting applications from the public. The Court also stressed that the State authorities and advocates have a responsibility to present correct information before the Court.

The Court highlighted the problems caused by the State's casual approach, which prolonged litigation unnecessarily and wasted judicial resources. It noted that even though it was clear that the position of tracer was to be filled by direct recruitment, the State had failed to follow the procedure, and failed to argue the correct position throughout the course of the litigation. The court emphasized that errors of the past do not entitle a person to benefit from those errors. The Supreme Court decision underscored the importance of adherence to the rule of law and proper documentation.

Excerpt, important quotes from the decision

  • “The case in hand is a glaring example of casualness on the part of the parties to produce proper documents before the Court.”
  • “Even the High Court in the impugned judgment has referred to the same as a letter of the Works Department, failing to appreciate the contents thereof which are in the form of statutory rules.”
  • “A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered.”
  • “A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking direction from the Court to the department to act in violation of the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality.”
  • “There cannot be more casualness than this where the authority of the State is fighting litigation and does not apprise the Tribunal or the Court about the relevant applicable rules.”
  • “It hardly needs to be emphasised that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practising in the High Courts and the District Courts."
  • "The State authorities should have resolved the issue at the very first stage when a representation was made by the petitioner seeking promotion to the post of Tracer way back in the year 1991"

Points to Remember

  • Adherence to Rules: Government authorities must strictly adhere to established recruitment and service rules.
  • Proper Documentation: Present proper and verified documentation in court proceedings.
  • Fair Recruitment: Ensure fair and transparent recruitment processes, including public advertisements.
  • Responsible Litigation: Act responsibly in litigation and avoid unnecessary delays and costs.
  • Negative Equality: Courts will not legitimize illegal practices; a claim of discrimination based on past illegal actions will be rejected.
  • Direct Recruitment: The case reinforced the primacy of direct recruitment for the post of Tracer, as opposed to promotion from lower-level positions.
  • State Responsibility: State authorities must be diligent and transparent in their actions, and they must correctly understand the rules.
  • Advocate's Role: Advocates appearing in court, especially the highest court, have a high degree of responsibility to present the correct facts, rules and to act with diligence
  • Systemic Issues: The case highlights broader issues within the government's administrative and legal machinery and the need for reforms to prevent future lapses.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more