'Article 14 Doesn't Envisage Negative Equality' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Based On Illegal Promotion Given To Others

The Supreme Court ruled that irregular promotions granted in the past cannot serve as a basis for continuing illegality. While holding so, the Court dismissed the appeal of a retired peon who sought promotion to the position of Tracer based on the fact that other employees had been promoted to this position, even though the recruitment rules specified that the Tracer role should be filled through direct recruitment rather than promotion from lower-level positions. The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal was hearing the case arising out of Orissa High Court's decision where the Appellant, a retired peon sought promotion to the post of Tracer based on the previous illegal promotion of her counterparts. The Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 (referred to as the "1979 Rules"), mandate 100% direct recruitment for the post of Tracer. Despite these rules, instances of promotion from non-feeder posts, such as peons, had occurred, creating a perception of discrimination. In rejecting the Appellant's claim, the judgment authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal stated that Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits negative discrimination. As a result, the promotions granted to other peons were deemed illegal and could not be used as a basis to perpetuate the illegality by promoting the Appellant, a promotion that was not authorized by the Rules. “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.” Reference was also made to the case of R. Muthukumar & others v. The Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO & others (2022), where the court 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.” Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Case Title: JYOSTNAMAYEE MISHRA VERSUS THE STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 91Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Swain, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Shibashish Misra, AORRelated- Article 14 Can't Be Invoked To Repeat Illegality Committed In Favour Of Someone : Supreme Court

'Article 14 Doesn't Envisage Negative Equality' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Based On Illegal Promotion Given To Others

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

'Article 14 Doesn't Envisage Negative Equality' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Based On Illegal Promotion Given To Others

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers