Introduction 

This landmark Supreme Court judgment, delivered by Justice Rajesh Bindal, addressed the critical issue of whether an employee can claim promotion to a post for which they do not fall in the feeder cadre, and which is required to be filled 100% by direct recruitment. The Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion from Peon to Tracer as the post was exclusively meant for direct recruitment. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper documentation in legal proceedings and criticizes the casual approach of parties in producing incorrect documents. 

Facts of the Case 

• The petitioner was working as a Peon with the State of Odisha since 1978. 
• She filed a representation dated 07.01.1999 seeking appointment to the post of Tracer. 
• The petitioner filed multiple applications before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal seeking promotion to the post of Tracer. 
• The Tribunal initially directed consideration of her case, later ordering her promotion/appointment to the post of Tracer. 
• The State challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal's decision. 
• Two other employees (Lalatendu Rath and Jhinarani Mansingh) were promoted as Tracer from Peon positions in 1999. 
• The petitioner claimed discrimination and sought similar treatment. 

Issues Involved 

1. Whether an employee can claim promotion to a post for which they do not fall in the feeder cadre, and which is meant for 100% direct recruitment. 
2. Whether vacancies meant for direct recruitment can be filled by internal promotion through departmental circulars. 
3. Whether parties failed to produce proper statutory documents, leading to miscarriage of justice. 
4. Whether the petitioner was discriminated against compared to similarly situated employees. 
5. Whether the recruitment process followed the prescribed statutory procedure under the 1979 Rules. 

Court's Observations 

Justice Rajesh Bindal made the following key observations: 

• Found that under Rule 5(1)(e) of the Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979, all posts of Tracers under categories I, II and III shall be filled by direct recruitment only. 
• Held that the post of Tracer is not a promotional post from the position of Peon as it does not find mention in Rule 6 dealing with promotions 
• Observed that the proper procedure under Rule 7 was not followed, which mandates advertisement in local newspapers and Orissa Gazette for direct recruitment 
• Noted that merely issuing a departmental circular cannot substitute for public advertisement as required by law 
• Severely criticized the casual approach of parties in producing improper documents, noting that statutory rules were being termed as "departmental letters" 
• Provided detailed comparison between the incorrectly typed document and the actual gazette notification to highlight discrepancies 
• Ruled that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, meaning illegal benefits granted to others cannot be claimed as precedent 
• Held that even if other employees were wrongly promoted, it does not create a legal right for the petitioner to claim similar illegal benefit 
• Strongly criticized the State's lackadaisical approach in litigation, noting that proper statutory rules were not referred to at any stage 
• Observed that the issue could have been resolved at the representation stage itself by referring to the 1979 Rules 

Legal Principles Established: 

• Posts designated for 100% direct recruitment cannot be filled through promotion, regardless of precedent. 
• Regular appointments under the State require proper public advertisement as per the prescribed procedure. 
• Parties must produce accurate statutory documents; casual approach in documentation can lead to miscarriage of justice 
• Illegal benefits granted to others cannot be claimed as precedent for granting similar illegal benefits 

Conclusion 

This landmark judgment establishes important principles regarding recruitment and promotion in government service under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that statutory rules must be strictly followed, and that promotional avenues exist only where specifically provided. The judgment reinforces that posts designated for direct recruitment cannot be filled through promotion, and that proper documentation and procedural compliance are essential in legal proceedings.