Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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