1. Promotion cannot be attributed to a post that is solely reserved for direct recruitment

The Supreme Court held that it would be against the law and sound selection practice for an employee to apply for promotion to a post meant exclusively for direct recruitment. In this case, direct recruitment alone was to fill all Tracer posts, as stated in Rule 5(1)(e) of the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979. Tracer did not come under Rule 6, dealing with promotions, which meant that there was no promotional channel.

The Court emphasized that earlier incorrect promotion had no precedential value and legislative norms override administrative conventions. Article 16 of the Constitution, assuring equality of opportunity in public employment, would be breached if such claims were allowed. The petitioner had no basis for promotion and was not eligible for direct recruitment. The Court stated that departing from designated recruitment procedures undermines transparency and fairness. Since promotion was not a legally approved avenue, her claim was rejected as meritless.

2. A direct recruitment vacancy cannot be recruited through internal circulars as opposed to public advertisement

The Supreme Court ruled that it is not in consonance with the constitution and statutory mandate for a government agency to appoint through internal circulars as opposed to public advertisement for filling up a post earmarked for direct recruitment. Under Rule 7 of the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979, public notices in the media and the Orissa Gazette are to be published before a competitive test utilized for direct recruitment.

The Court emphasized that transparent and fair selection is required to provide equal opportunity in public employment, as ensured by Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that appointments should be done through an open selection process, referring to its judgment Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela .[1]The eligible candidates are kept out of the public by issuing internal circulars and considering applications only from existing employees, making the process arbitrary and unconstitutional. Because the department did not adopt the compulsory recruitment process, whatever appointments were done using internal circulars were held to be illegal and invalid. The Court reinforced that government vacancies cannot be secretly or arbitrarily filled, affirming merit-based choice as a bedrock principle.

3. Earlier examples of improper promotions does not justify extending similar relief to the petitioner under Article 14 (Right to Equality)

The Supreme Court ruled that since the Constitution does not acknowledge negative equality, the petitioner cannot be extended similar remedies under Article 14 on the grounds of earlier illegal promotions. The petitioner argued that she was eligible for the same treatment as two other Peons who had been promoted to the rank of Tracer.

The Court rejected this argument, however, citing that one case of illegality does not entitle others to claim the same unlawful acts. Referring to  R. Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO [2]and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer), [3]the Court again asserted that Article 14 guarantees fair and reasonable treatment, not revisiting errors of the past.

The court again laid stress on the fact that allowing such claims would be penalizing continuous violation of statutory rules, setting bad precedents of good governance and merit-based appointments. Because the 1979 Rules did not permit promotions to the Tracer position, relief on the basis of past illegal appointments would merely render the situation more illegal. Therefore, the Court held that wrong precedents cannot be employed to claim unlawful benefits, and the petitioner’s claim was justifiably dismissed.