The Supreme Court held that past irregular promotions cannot justify perpetuating illegality. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal of a retired peon who sought promotion to the position of Tracer, arguing that others had been promoted to the role despite recruitment rules mandating that the position be filled through direct recruitment rather than promotion from lower ranks. A bench comprising Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard an appeal stemming from the Orissa High Court's decision, where the appellant, a retired peon, sought promotion to the post of Tracer based on the prior illegal promotions of her counterparts. The Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 ("1979 Rules"), require that the post of Tracer be filled entirely through direct recruitment. However, despite these rules, promotions from non-feeder posts, such as peons, had taken place, leading to a perception of discrimination.
In rejecting the appellant's claim, the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits negative discrimination. The Court clarified that while promotions were granted to other peons, these promotions were deemed illegal as they violated the established recruitment rules. The Court further stated that such illegal actions could not serve as a precedent to justify or continue the illegality by promoting the appellant to the position of Tracer, as the promotion was not in accordance with the rules. Consequently, the appellant’s request for promotion based on these unlawful precedents was dismissed. “Another argument was raised while referring to two communications dated 28.06.1999 appointing Ms. Jhina Rani Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer on promotion, claiming to be from the post of Peon, on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14, namely the discrimination. Suffice to add, this Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same. 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”.
The Court also referenced the case of R. Muthukumar & Others v. The Chairman and Managing Director, TANGEDCO & Others (2022), where it was held that "if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people, without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or equality." Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the illegal promotions granted to other peons could not be used as a justification to promote the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
info@adhwaitha.com
