The Supreme Court of India has set aside a Kerala High Court ruling in a significant seniority dispute between directly recruited and promoted Assistant Engineers of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA). The apex court held that once appointed as an Assistant Engineer, an individual retains the right to choose between the degree or diploma quota for future promotions. The ruling clarifies the applicability of Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (Subordinate Service Rules) and Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (Special Rules), affirming that these govern different stages of employment.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when six employees of KWA, initially recruited as Draftsmen, were later promoted to Assistant Engineers between 2015 and 2018. Meanwhile, two private respondents, Anoop V.S. and Bindu S., were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers in 2005 and 2017, respectively.
Read Also:- Consumer Protection Act | Supreme Court Clarifies 'Self-Employment' Criteria in Machine Purchase Disputes
A seniority list released by KWA placed the promoted engineers above the directly recruited ones, leading to a legal challenge. The private respondents contended that the promoted engineers had availed the diploma quota and thus could not later claim benefits under the degree quota for further promotions.
High Court’s Ruling and Arguments
The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of the private respondents, affirming that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules required employees to select either the diploma or degree quota at the time of their promotion. The Division Bench upheld this decision, barring employees from changing their quota choice in future promotions.
Aggrieved by the decision, Sajithabhai and other similarly placed employees approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court misinterpreted the rules.
Petitioners’ Arguments
Senior Counsel Mr. Nikhil Goel, representing the petitioners, contended that:
- The High Court wrongly applied Rule 4(b) at the promotion stage to Assistant Engineer.
- The Subordinate Service Rules dictate the appointment of Assistant Engineers, with recruitment occurring through direct entry (60%) and promotion (40%).
- Rule 4(b) applies only to promotions from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer, not to the initial promotion from Draftsman to Assistant Engineer.
- The High Court’s ruling would unfairly disadvantage meritorious candidates holding both diploma and degree qualifications, as it would allow junior diploma-holders obtaining a degree later to surpass senior candidates.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Explores Extending Tribunal Members' Tenure Amid Delayed Appointments
Respondents’ Arguments
Senior Counsel Mr. V. Chitambaresh, appearing for KWA and private respondents, countered that:
- Once an employee opted for promotion under the diploma quota, they could not later claim seniority based on a degree qualification.
- Citing Chandravathi P.K. v. C.K. Saji (2004 INSC 101), he argued that employees must adhere to their initial quota selection.
The Supreme Court provided a detailed reasoning, overturning the High Court’s ruling:
“The Subordinate Service Rules govern recruitment and promotions up to Assistant Engineer, while the Special Rules apply to higher promotions. The High Court erred in applying Rule 4(b) to Assistant Engineer appointments.”
Different Rules Govern Different Stages: The Court clarified that the Subordinate Service Rules handle recruitment and promotions up to Assistant Engineer, whereas the Special Rules apply only for promotions beyond this rank.
Right to Opt for Quota Remains Open: The Court ruled that once an individual becomes an Assistant Engineer, they may choose their promotion quota (degree or diploma) under Rule 4(b) when seeking higher promotions.
Misinterpretation of Chandravathi P.K. Case: The Court noted that this precedent dealt with weightage for pre-degree service, which was unrelated to the current matter.
Read Also:- High Court Appointments Since 2018: 77% Judges Belong to Upper Caste, Reveals Law Ministry
Avoidance of Arbitrary Distinctions: The Court stressed that the High Court’s interpretation would create an unfair system where a junior diploma-holder obtaining a degree later could overtake a senior diploma-degree holder.
“Statutory interpretation must avoid irrational and unintended consequences.” – Citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981 INSC 160)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, restoring the original seniority list published by KWA. It ruled that:
- Promoted Assistant Engineers are not bound by their initial quota selection.
- They may exercise their option under Rule 4(b) when seeking promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer.
Decided on: March 18, 2025
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Nikhil Goel
Counsel for the Private Respondents: Mr. V. Chitambaresh
