Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Promotion Eligibility of Kerala Water Authority Engineers: Diploma Promotees Cannot Switch to Degree Quota: Kerala HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has clarified the rules surrounding the promotion eligibility of Assistant Engineers in the Kerala Water Authority (KWA). Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, presiding over the case, ruled that engineers promoted through the Diploma quota cannot subsequently switch to the Degree quota for further promotions.

The court was dealing with a dispute regarding the seniority and promotion of Assistant Engineers who entered service through different quotas. The key legal issue was whether engineers promoted from the Diploma quota could be included in the seniority list for Degree quota promotions. The judgment explicitly states, “the action of including respondents 4 to 10 in Ext.P12 final seniority list of directly recruited Assistant Engineers is clearly illegal.”

Justice Vijayaraghavan observed, “Assistant Engineers are appointed through two primary methods: direct recruitment from the open market and internal recruitment of candidates holding an Engineering Degree, as well as promotion from Draftsman Grade 1 positions for those with an Engineering Diploma.” This distinction, as per the Court, necessitates maintaining separate seniority lists for each category.

The judgment extensively referred to the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Special Rules and the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules. These rules stipulate the service conditions of employees and form the basis of the court’s decision.

The Court further quoted from its judgment, “Respondents 4 to 10, while serving as Overseers in the KWA, responded to a PSC notification and were included in the Ext.P8 rank list for direct recruitment. However, they opted not to pursue direct recruitment as Assistant Engineers, presumably due to the advantages and benefits that such a course offered to them.”

This ruling has significant implications for the promotion policies within the Kerala Water Authority. It clarifies that the path of promotion for engineers is determined by the quota through which they initially entered service, whether by direct recruitment or through promotion from the Diploma quota.

Date of Decision: 22nd November 2023

Sajithabai and Others VS Kerala Water Authority and Others

Latest Legal News