Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Merit Cannot Be Overlooked Due to Bureaucratic Rigidity:  Supreme Court Restores Seniority of Promoted Engineers in Kerala Water Authority

19 March 2025 1:16 PM

By: sayum


An Employee’s Future Should Be Determined by Qualifications and Experience, Not by a Misreading of Rules – In a landmark ruling that reinforces the principle of fairness in service law, the Supreme Court of India has held that once an employee becomes an Assistant Engineer, their future career path should not be restricted based on how they entered the post. The Court, in Sajithabai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority, overturned a judgment by the Kerala High Court that had wrongly classified promoted engineers into a rigid category, denying them their rightful seniority.

Justice Manmohan, delivering the judgment, made a strong observation: "A career in public service is built on merit, effort, and qualifications. It cannot be derailed by an artificial classification that has no basis in law." The Court ruled that engineers promoted from Draftsman Grade-I cannot be placed in a disadvantageous position merely because they were initially promoted under the diploma quota. It clarified that once an individual is appointed as an Assistant Engineer, they form part of a single cadre and have equal rights to further promotions.

A Seniority Dispute That Escalated Into a Legal Battle

The case arose from a dispute over seniority rankings in the Kerala Water Authority. The appellants were engineers who had been promoted from Draftsman Grade-I to Assistant Engineers between 2015 and 2018. On the other side were two respondents who had entered the post of Assistant Engineer through direct recruitment, one in 2017 and another in 2005 (but rejoining in 2015 after extended leave).

The Kerala Water Authority published seniority lists in 2022 and 2023, ranking the promoted engineers above the directly recruited engineers. The respondents challenged this ranking in the Kerala High Court, arguing that the promoted engineers should be treated as part of the ‘diploma quota’ and placed below directly recruited degree holders.

The Kerala High Court accepted this argument and ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the promoted engineers could not claim parity with direct recruits and must remain in the diploma quota for all further promotions. The appellants, facing a sudden career setback after years of service, approached the Supreme Court.

High Court’s Interpretation Was Fundamentally Flawed

The Supreme Court dismissed the High Court’s reasoning as a misreading of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Rules. Justice Manmohan firmly stated: "There is no provision in the service rules that forces an employee to remain permanently bound to the category through which they entered the post. Once a person becomes an Assistant Engineer, they are entitled to career progression on equal terms with their peers."

Rejecting the High Court’s interpretation, the Court held that Rule 4(b) of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960, does not apply at the stage of promotion to Assistant Engineer but only at the next stage of promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer. Justice Manmohan clarified: "The Kerala High Court imposed an artificial distinction between degree-holders and diploma-holders when no such distinction was ever intended at the level of Assistant Engineer."

The Court also pointed out that the appellants were not given any formal opportunity to choose between the degree quota and the diploma quota at the time of their promotion. It held that no employee should be penalized for an option they were never given.

Merit and Fairness Must Prevail

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court restored the seniority of the promoted engineers and upheld the original rankings issued by the Kerala Water Authority. It ruled that all Assistant Engineers, whether directly recruited or promoted, belong to a common cadre and must be treated equally for further promotions.

Justice Dipankar Datta, concurring with the judgment, noted: "Seniority must be determined by clear service rules, not by rigid classifications that disadvantage deserving candidates. Public administration must reward experience and qualification, not arbitrary distinctions."

A Judgment That Protects Career Progression Against Misinterpretation of Rules

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sajithabai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority reaffirms the principle that employees cannot be unfairly disadvantaged due to a misreading of promotion rules. By rejecting the High Court’s attempt to place employees into rigid categories, the Court has upheld the right of all qualified engineers to advance in their careers on the basis of merit.

The judgment serves as a crucial precedent for future disputes involving quota-based promotions, ensuring that service rules are interpreted in a manner that promotes fairness and efficiency rather than technical rigidity. Justice Manmohan’s closing remarks summed up the Court’s position:

"When merit and experience are disregarded in favor of bureaucratic technicalities, it is not just the employee who suffers—it is the entire system of public service. The law must be applied in a way that facilitates progress, not obstructs it."

Date of decision: 18/03/2025

Latest Legal News