Sub-ordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 – Claim of petitioner for the post of Tracer on promotion basis – Petitioner herein was working as a peon with respondent-State – Petitioner disappointed with the various rounds of the litigation before the Tribunal followed by writ petition before the High Court – Petitioner alleged the discriminatory action of the respondent authorities with regard to her promotion to the post of Tracer as two persons were promoted by communications dated 28.06.1999 from the post of peon to Tracer – Petitioner is claiming violation of Article 14 of the Constitution: Held: The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she is not eligible for the post of Tracer – As per 1979 Rules, the post of Tracer is 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 has 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 – As far as violation of Article 14 and discriminatory action is concerned, 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 – Thus, there is no merit in the petition – In the case in hand there was casualness on the part of the State Authorities while dealing with the litigation – 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 this 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. [Paras 30, 31, 33] Sub-ordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979 – Rules 5, 6, 7 – Post of Tracer – Category to be filled by direct recruitment – Importance of public advertisement – Whether in the instant case, the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 was followed: Held: From a perusal of the Rules, it is evident that the post of Tracer in all three categories is to be filled up by direct recruitment only, after following the procedure as prescribed – It is not in dispute that the procedure as prescribed in Rule 7 of the 1979 Rules has not been followed by issuing advertisement and inviting application for the post of Tracer – All what 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 – The Supreme Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and others, has emphasised the importance of a public advertisement for inviting applications to a post under the State. [Para 22]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan 2024 INSC 46 : (2024) 4 SCC 432. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.