Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Odisha government for its casual approach to litigation, citing its failure to provide proper documents, including relevant rules. Emphasizing the need for greater caution, the court remarked that authorities must act responsibly to prevent unnecessary legal disputes.

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, while dismissing an appeal filed by Jyostnamayee Mishra regarding her promotion from peon to tracer, noted that the court was tasked with examining the validity of an order where the parties either failed to produce proper documents or submitted incorrectly typed ones.

"This does not happen in isolation, rather is a routine, which sometimes results in miscarriage of justice in case the issues are not examined in detail with proper assistance of the parties, especially the State where it is party to the lis. It may also put the court to ridicule," the bench said.

The issues before the court were whether an employee in an establishment is entitled to claim promotion on a post for which he does not fall in the feeder cadre and the post is required to be filled up 100% by way of direct recruitment and whether a vacancy meant for direct recruitment can be filled up merely by issuing a circular in the establishment and not by issuing an advertisement calling application from the eligible candidates from public at large.

Having gone through the case record, the bench highlighted especially in a case which had already undergone three rounds of litigation, proper facts were not pointed out.

"The case in hand is a glaring example of casualness on the part of the parties to produce proper documents before the Court. The statutory rules dealing with the post in question, are being termed as letter of department. 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," the bench said.

The court pointed out there were other major discrepancies in the document produced by the petitioner along with the petition.

"If we had relied upon the same, it would certainly mislead the court in reaching to a right conclusion," the bench said.

As per the merits of the matter, after perusing the Rules, the court said, it was evident that the post of tracer in all three categories was to be filled up by direct recruitment only, after following the procedure as prescribed.

The bench noted that it was not in dispute that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1979 Rules had not been followed by issuing advertisements and inviting applications for the post of Tracer. All that is said is that a Circular was issued in the department inviting applications from the Peons for appointment or promotion for the post of Tracer, it noted.

"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. The effort may be to put under covers the illegalities committed by them earlier by granting promotion from the post of Peon to that of Tracer in violation of the 1979 Rules," the bench said.

In the case, the bench said though, the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on the ground that she was not eligible for the post of tracer, however, it needed not enter into that arena for the reason that as per 1979 Rules, the post of Tracer was to be filled up to 100% by way of direct recruitment in terms of Rule 5(1)(e) of the 1979 Rules and the method of direct recruitment had been provided in Rule 7 thereof.

"Undisputedly, the process as provided in the Rules was not followed. The post of Tracer, not being promotional post from the post of Peon, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner," the bench said.

In its judgment, the bench said it was constrained to observe that the case in hand was a glaring example of casualness on the part of the State Authorities while dealing with the litigation.

The issue could be resolved 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. The chapter could have been closed merely while responding to the same while referring to the relevant statutory 1979 Rules, it said.

"To some extent it was done but false hopes are created in the minds of employees if some other similarly situated are granted the benefit, which itself is contrary to the Rules. The letters continued flowing from the petitioner to the respondent, and from one department to another as a shuttlecock, as if there is no other constructive work to do," the bench said.

It pointed out that even before the Tribunal, the petitioner had three rounds of litigation followed by one Writ Petition before the High Court by the State and thereafter the Supreme Court.

"At none of these stages, the relevant statutory 1979 Rules were referred to either in the counter or in the petition. Such conduct is not expected from the State which is the major litigant and the case in hand is an example of unnecessary generation of litigation by the State where the authorities need to circumspect and be more careful," the bench said.

The bench also pointed out that this lackadaisical approach of the State was also noticed by the apex court in Kusha Duruka v the State of Odisha (2024) where during pendency of the matter before the court, a fresh bail application was filed and high court even granted bail to the petitioner.

The affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, Law Department, Govt of Odisha revealed that the State Counsel was not aware of the rejection of his first bail application as well as the filing of SLP. Noticing efforts being made to pollute the stream of administration of justice, this court issued several instructions with a view to streamline the proceedings and avoid anomalies with reference to the bail applications, the bench said.

The court finally directed a copy of the present order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Odisha for perusal and taking appropriate corrective steps.

Case Title: Jyostnamayee Mishra Vs The State of Odisha And Ors