Tracer Posts Must Be Filled Only by Direct Recruitment; Advertisement and Competitive Test Are Mandatory

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal heard a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order that set aside an Orissa Administrative Tribunal direction to promote a long‑serving Class‑IV employee to the post of Tracer. The appeal raised two central questions: whether an employee from a non‑feeder cadre could claim promotion to a post required to be filled entirely by direct recruitment, and whether a departmental circular could substitute for a public advertisement and competitive selection prescribed for direct recruitment.

The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the legal principle that the post of Tracer was not promotional but to be filled by direct recruitment in accordance with the Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules, 1979. The Court emphasised that the statutory scheme required a competitive test and public advertisement; it noted that the process prescribed in Rule 7 had not been followed and that reliance on a mis‑typed departmental letter had misled lower forums. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Though, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she is not eligible for the post of Tracer, however, we need not enter into that arena for the reason that 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." The Court further quoted its earlier authority that "The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection... Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement... would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16."

Background

The petitioner, who had worked as a peon since 1978, sought appointment to the post of Tracer through a representation in 1999 and by subsequent litigation. After an admission‑stage direction by the Tribunal to decide her representation, the department replied that Tracer vacancies were not to be filled by promotion and would be filled "by conducting the interview." The petitioner filed multiple Original Applications before the Tribunal; in 2010 the Tribunal directed consideration of her case for promotion and, in 2016, ordered appointment/promotional relief against any vacant post or reversion of the last promoted person. The State challenged these directions before the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal orders on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the qualification provision quoted from a departmental letter. The Supreme Court found that litigants and authorities had repeatedly relied on a mis‑typed document purporting to be the 1979 Rules (Annexure P‑2), which omitted, duplicated and misnumbered key provisions. The Court held that Rule 5(1)(e) of the 1979 Rules prescribed that "all posts of Tracers under categories I, II and III shall be filled in by direct recruitment" and Rule 7 required advertisement, written test and viva voce and appointments on a merit list. The Court recorded that the State had not properly placed the statutory rules on record at earlier stages and described the litigation as "a glaring example of casualness" by parties and authorities in producing and relying on incorrect documents. The Court dismissed the petition, held that the post of Tracer was not promotional from Peon, and noted that Article 14 did not entitle the petitioner to perpetuate or rely upon past departmental irregularities. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha for corrective steps. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13984 of 2023; Citation: 2025 INSC 87 Case Title: Jyostnamayee Mishra v. The State of Odisha and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]