Case Name: Sajithabai and Ors. vs. The Kerala Water Authority & Ors.

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025

Date: March 18, 2025

Quorum: Justice Manmohan, Justice Dipankar Datta

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

The appellants, who are six employees of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA), were during the beginning inducted as Draftsmen-Grade-I. All these employees were later promoted to Assistant Engineers respectively. The dispute, in the said case, arose when their seniority, as reflected in the seniority lists dated April 20, 2022, and February 14, 2023, was challenged by the private respondents, directing the recruits to the post of Assistant Engineer. The Kerala High Court in the said case had ruled in favor of the private respondents. The court held that the appellants had been wrongly placed in the seniority list based on an wrong interpretation of the applicable service rules. The Supreme Court was further approached to determine whether the appellants, who had been initially qualified for direct recruitment in the degree quota but were promoted in the diploma quota, could later claim seniority under the degree quota.

ISSUES

 

1. Whether the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, or the Special Rules, 1960, should determine seniority for Assistant Engineers promoted from Draftsmen.
2. Whether an employee who declines an appointment under the degree quota can later claim seniority under it.
3. Whether Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960, applies to all Assistant Engineers or only to those acquiring a degree after their promotion.

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

1. Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 – Governs promotions within the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service.

 

1. Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 – Regulates appointments and promotions up to the post of Assistant Engineer.
2. Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960 – Determines the criteria for promotion from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer.

 

ARGUMENTS

 

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 

1. Their promotion to Assistant Engineer was under the 40% promotion quota of the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, where no option between diploma and degree quotas was required.
2. The Special Rules, 1960, which require an option between quotas, apply only at the stage of promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer, not at the Assistant Engineer level.
3. The seniority list was correctly prepared, as they had acquired degrees before promotion and were eligible under the Special Rules.

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. The appellants had declined appointment under the degree quota and were promoted under the diploma quota; thus, they could not later claim benefits under the degree quota.
2. Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960, applies only to those acquiring a degree after promotion to Assistant Engineer.
3. The judgment in Chandravathi P.K. vs. C.K. Saji (2004) supports the argument that once an employee chooses a quota, they cannot later switch between quotas for advantage.

ANALYSIS

 

The Supreme Court held that the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, and the Special Rules, 1960, govern different services, with the former applying only up to the Assistant Engineer level and the latter applicable to further promotions. The Court made the following observations. The Special Rules, 1960, apply only after an officer becomes an Assistant Engineer, making Rule 4(b) inapplicable at the stage of appointment as Assistant Engineer. Once an employee becomes an Assistant Engineer, they may opt for the degree quota for further promotions, provided they meet eligibility criteria. The lower courts incorrectly assumed that an option was necessary even at the Assistant Engineer level, leading to an erroneous judgment against the appellants. The interpretation proposed by the private respondents would allow a later-promoted diploma-holder who subsequently earns a degree to gain undue seniority over an earlier-promoted degree-holder.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s decision.
2. It ruled in favor of the appellants, affirming that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960, applies to all Assistant Engineers, allowing them to opt between diploma and degree quotas for further promotions.
3. The seniority list prepared by the Kerala Water Authority was restored.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This ruling clarifies that employees promoted under the diploma quota are not barred from opting into the degree quota for higher promotions. The judgment ensures that promotions are fairly determined based on qualifications and prevents unjust seniority claims based on misinterpretation of the rules.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY POOJA PARAMESWARAN