CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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