Pleadings require independent evidence for proof and Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegalities.

The applicant’s grandfather, Late Raghunath Naik, was engaged as a part-time casual laborer (sweeper) at the HRO, RMS N Division, Cuttack, from 01.01.1974 until his death on 09.09.2020

The applicant claimed that due to his grandfather's incapacitation, he had been discharging those duties as a substitute since 2007

Following his grandfather's death and his subsequent disengagement on 10.09.2020, the applicant filed representations for formal engagement, which were rejected

The applicant challenged the rejection order dated 17.08.2022, seeking a direction to be enrolled as a Contingent Casual Labour/Sweeper, alleging that others had been allowed to provide substitutes

The respondents denied that the applicant was ever officially engaged and argued that there is no legal provision for hereditary engagement for part-time work

1. Whether mere assertions in pleadings regarding prior informal engagement as a substitute worker, without supporting documentary evidence, entitle an applicant to legal relief

2. Whether a right to engagement can be claimed on a part-time/contingent basis based on hereditary succession or the principle of negative equality

pleadings alone, without supporting material evidence, cannot form the basis of relief, as established in Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani (2005) and Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Aziz Ahmad (2009).

Article 14 is a positive concept; relying on Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2024), the Tribunal held that "negative equality" cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or mandate the State to repeat an irregular appointment.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant failed to provide any "independent, admissible evidence" such as identity cards or payment records to prove he had actually worked as a substitute

It held that material facts asserted in pleadings must be proven by evidence (facta probantia) and cannot be assumed as true if disputed

the Tribunal observed that part-time engagement is a prerogative of the department based on work requirements and public interest, not a matter of right

Even if the applicant’s grandfather had submitted an affidavit, it carried no legal weight to transfer a government engagement hereditarily.

Addressing the applicant's claim that others were allowed substitutes, the Tribunal applied the Tinku precedent, stating that if an illegality was committed in other cases, the Court cannot compel the authority to repeat that illegality to grant the applicant relief

The Tribunal concluded that the O.A. was devoid of merit as there was no evidence of prior engagement and no legal basis for hereditary contingent employment

The O.A. was dismissed, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were closed