Power to Abolish a Post Lies with the Government; Courts Should Not Interfere Without Proof of Mala Fide: Observes Orissa High Court

Article 14 Does Not Envisage Negative Equality — Orissa High Court refusing to direct post-retirement absorption of a former employee into the Directorate of Ground Water Survey & Investigation (GWS&I). Justice G. Satapathy, while dismissing the petition, held that “Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality” and emphasized that "if a wrong is committed in earlier cases, it cannot be perpetuated."
The judgment is significant in reinforcing the principle that courts will not mandate administrative absorption based solely on earlier irregular benefits given to others, particularly when the petitioner has failed to establish timely legal compliance or demonstrate mala fide in administrative decisions.
Nimai Harichandan Panda, who joined as a Tracer in the Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. (OLIC) in 1982 and was regularized in 1985, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the decision of the State Government to abolish his post following a large-scale restructuring of OLIC. He sought reliefs including quashing of the abolition order, post-facto absorption in GWS&I, and payment of retiral dues.
The petitioner contended that although he exercised the required option to transfer to GWS&I in 1996, the same was never acted upon. He further alleged discriminatory treatment when two junior Tracers — Smt. Manorama Mishra and Smt. Bishnupriya Mishra — were later absorbed into GWS&I in 2007.
The core issue before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective absorption in GWS&I, especially when he had not conclusively proved that he had exercised the required option within the stipulated period.
Justice Satapathy noted: “The petitioner could not establish to have exercised valid option to express his intention to come over to GWS&I.”
He emphasized that the petitioner’s claim was primarily grounded on alleged discrimination due to absorption of his juniors. However, the Court firmly rejected this argument, holding: “A litigant coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination/equality seeking direction from the Court to the Department to act in violation of the law or statutory rules.”
“Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. In other words, 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.”
The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in R. Muthukumar v. TANGEDCO and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, stating: “It is settled legal position that Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud... If a wrong is committed in earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated.”
On the issue of abolition of the post itself, the Court observed: “Creation and abolition of posts is a matter of Government policy… Every sovereign Government has this power in the interest and necessity of internal administration.”

Relying on State of Haryana v. Navneet Verma, the Court held: “As long as the decision to abolish the post is taken in good faith in the absence of material, interference by the court is not warranted.”
The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had no vested right to be absorbed into the GWS&I or any other department, particularly after failing to establish timely option submission or improper rejection by the authority.
“The petitioner having not been able to establish to have exercised the option at the time of creation of GWS&I, he cannot subsequently be directed to be absorbed in said department or any other department.”
Further, the Court stated: “This Court does not consider it proper to interfere with such decision of the Government... the petitioner has no legal right to claim absorption based on actions allegedly taken in favor of others.”
In denying relief to the petitioner, the Orissa High Court underscored long-settled principles of administrative law, emphasizing that equity cannot override legality and that courts will not legitimize irregularities under the guise of equality. The case stands as a reaffirmation that employment in government service must adhere strictly to constitutional and statutory frameworks — not perceived parity.

Date of Decision: 08 April 2025