Clarifying the Scope of Direct Recruitment in Public Service: The Tracer Post Under the 1979 Rules

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jyostnamayee Mishra v. The State of Odisha (2025 INSC 87) addresses crucial questions concerning the statutory recruitment rules governing the post of Tracer within certain Odisha Government offices. Specifically, the case examines whether:

A public employee (a Peon) can claim promotion to the post of Tracer, which is legally designated to be filled exclusively by direct recruitment; and
A department can bypass public advertisement and conduct only in-house circular-based recruitment for posts meant to be filled by open competitive examination.

The Judgment also exposes a pattern of procedural lapses and lack of proper document submission, both by the litigants and the State, which prolonged the litigation unnecessarily. Despite repeated opportunities, the relevant statutory rules—Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (the “1979 Rules”)—were neither timely shown to the Administrative Tribunal nor to the High Court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court has underscored the mandatory need to follow statutory requirements for recruitment and clarified that statutory rules cannot be overridden by departmental practices or circulars.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The petitioner, a Peon (Class-IV employee) in the Odisha State Public Health Department, repeatedly sought appointment/promotion to the post of Tracer. Over time, she invoked various legal forums, including the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, the High Court of Orissa, and eventually the Supreme Court. She argued that she possessed "Tracer Training" certification and that “similarly situated” employees had, in the past, been promoted from Peon to Tracer.

The Supreme Court examined the 1979 Rules, which unequivocally require the post of Tracer in Categories I, II, and III to be filled by 100% direct recruitment. The Court found that:

The petitioner’s request for “promotion” to the post of Tracer—absent a legal provision allowing such promotion—had no basis in law.
No valid recruitment process, following the prescribed advertisement and open competition, was conducted for appointment to the Tracer post in question.
The State authorities acted casually and failed to submit the correct legislative source (the 1979 Rules) in a timely manner, resulting in repeated rounds of litigation.
Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, so the petitioner could not rely on others’ potentially illegal promotions to claim the same benefit.

Concluding that the 1979 Rules bar any promotion from Peon to Tracer, and that the petitioner’s pleaded comparisons to other employees’ promotions did not create any vested right, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner’s claim while remarking on the laxity of the State in properly defending such cases.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

Although not decisively focusing on a chain of judgments, the Supreme Court cited and referenced legal principles emerging from:

Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela (2006): Stressing the necessity of public advertisement and an open, competitive selection process for appointments under the State.
R. Muthukumar & Ors v. Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO & Ors (2022): Reaffirming that unlawful or erroneous appointments in the past cannot create grounds for negative equality or confer a right to others for similarly illegal appointments.
Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013): Underlining that Article 14 cannot be utilized to perpetuate illegal or mistaken actions.
Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023): Highlighting the duty of diligence demanded from lawyers and litigants in drafting and submitting accurate pleadings.

The Court used these precedents primarily to reject the notion that an individual can claim appointment or promotion solely because other similarly situated employees had been (erroneously) granted that benefit.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

Interpretation of the Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979:
Rules 5 and 6 of the 1979 Rules frame the method of recruitment for the different posts in Categories I, II, and III. Rule 5(1)(e) explicitly states that “all posts of Tracers under Categories I, II, and III shall be filled in by direct recruitment.” Hence, there is no mention or legal scope for promotion to the Tracer post from any lower post, including Peon.

Additionally, Rule 7 prescribes that direct recruitment must follow an open, competitive test and public advertisement in local newspapers and the official Orissa Gazette. The Court found the department had bypassed these statutory mandates, leading to the issuance of erroneous promotions in the past.
Applicability of Negative Equality Principle:
The Court invoked the principle that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envision making an illegal act the legal basis for further identical illegalities. The fact that some employees were wrongly promoted from Peon to Tracer did not create a right for the petitioner to be similarly promoted. The Court refused to uphold or extend these past irregularities.
Mandatory Public Advertisement:
Relying on Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela, the Court reiterated that any regular appointment under the State requires a proper advertisement inviting eligible candidates, followed by a fair selection process. An internal circular inviting applications exclusively from Peons did not satisfy these requirements.
Critique of Casualness by Litigants and State Authorities:
The Court repeatedly rebuked both the petitioner and the State for failing to produce the correct version of the 1979 Rules in a timely manner. The “letter” incorrectly typed and repeatedly referred to as “Letter No. 4775 dated 26.02.1980” was, in reality, the Gazette notification containing the 1979 Rules. The mislabeling and omissions in the typed transcripts hindered a proper legal analysis and caused needless litigation.

3.3 Impact

This decision clarifies and reaffirms the strict adherence required for statutory recruitment processes for public posts in Odisha. It has a far-reaching impact:

Compliance Enforcement: The authorities in Odisha must ensure that vacant posts of Tracer—or similar positions governed by statutory rules—are filled in accordance with direct recruitment procedures mandated by law.
Future Promotions Under Watch: Departments will need to scrutinize any existing practices for internal promotions to posts reserved for direct recruitment. Any irregularities will face potential legal challenges, making compliance with established rules essential.
Litigation Management: This Judgment serves as a caution against casual drafting and submission of incomplete or inaccurate documents in court proceedings. Litigation arising from neglect of clear legal rules burdens both the judiciary and the public exchequer.
Negative Equality Principle Reinforced: Employees seeking parity with improperly appointed or promoted colleagues will not find relief solely by claiming “equal treatment.” Courts will reject attempts to perpetuate an illegality.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Direct Recruitment: A method of hiring candidates where the government or relevant authority advertises the vacancy openly, conducts a formal selection process (such as a written exam, interview, or both), and selects the best candidates for the position.
Promotion vs. Direct Recruitment: Promotion is an upward progression from a lower post within the same service or department (usually outlined by specific “feeder” provisions). When rules state “100% direct recruitment,” it effectively removes any prospect of a promotion channel for that position.
Negative Equality: Under constitutional law, “negative equality” refers to a plea seeking equal treatment in the event of an earlier mistake or illegality. Courts do not allow this argument to stand, as it would perpetuate an illegality. In other words, one cannot use someone else’s improper or illegal advantage to demand the same advantage for themselves.
Article 309 of the Constitution: Empowers the State to regulate recruitment and conditions of service for persons serving in public services. The 1979 Rules were framed under the proviso to Article 309, making them binding statutory rules.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha has broad significance. First, it reaffirms that courts will uphold statutory rules specifying direct recruitment, even when internal or informal departmental preferences suggest a different path (such as promotions). Second, it clarifies that employees cannot successfully invoke Article 14 to receive the benefit of a prior, illegal promotion or appointment. Third, the Court strongly criticized the State for failing to present relevant rules promptly and properly. This lack of diligence contributed to multiple rounds of avoidable litigation.

Overall, the Judgment resoundingly concludes that the Tracer post—under the Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979—belongs solely to direct recruitment, leaving no room for promotion from the Peon cadre. The Court’s reprimand of casualness in litigation is also significant: it stresses the responsibilities borne by government departments and litigants alike. Properly referencing controlling legal provisions at the earliest stages ensures expedited and transparent adjudication, thereby serving the interests of justice.