Special Officer Equated to Senior Superintendent – Kerala High Court Orders Fresh Look at Absorption Dispute

Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. delivered a significant ruling in Jose Dominic v. State of Kerala & Others [OP (KAT) No.187 of 2025]. The Court set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 4 March 2025 in O.A. (EKM) No.79 of 2020, which had dismissed the petitioner’s plea for absorption in an equivalent cadre following the Government takeover of the Co-operative Medical College, Kalamassery.

The Bench held that the Tribunal had failed to consider crucial documents—Exts.P9 and P10—that recommended the creation of a Senior Superintendent post equivalent to the petitioner’s position as Special Officer (Employment & Training). The matter has been remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

“When Records Show Equivalence, Tribunal Cannot Ignore Them” – High Court

The Court’s central observation was that the Tribunal had wrongly dismissed the petitioner’s claim due to “lack of proof of equivalence,” without the benefit of documents subsequently produced before the High Court. Ext.P9, a letter dated 28.02.2015, explicitly recommended the creation of a Senior Superintendent post equated to Special Officer (E&T). It stated:

“Special Officer (Employment & Training) (Equated to Sr. Superintendent): This is the only Supervisory Level post existing in the administrative wing of this Medical College… Even though there is no mentioning of this post in MCI regulations, the post of Senior Superintendent is inevitable in Medical College for its smooth functioning.”

Similarly, Ext.P10 dated 02.07.2015 listed the petitioner by name, noting that since there was “no post of Special Officer in DME service,” he was recommended for absorption as Junior Superintendent/Senior Superintendent.

The Court observed that since these documents were withheld earlier, the Tribunal’s finding of “absence of evidence” could not stand.

From CAPE Appointment to UDC Downgrade

Jose Dominic was originally appointed under the Co-operative Academy of Professional Education (CAPE) as Office Assistant in 2002. After promotions and qualifying exams, he rose to the post of Special Officer (Employment & Training) through a duly notified selection process in 2011. His probation in that cadre was declared in 2016.

When the Co-operative Medical College was integrated into the Medical Education Department in 2013, the Government created teaching and non-teaching posts, but no corresponding post for Special Officer. Although two Senior Superintendent posts (same pay scale as Special Officer) were sanctioned in 2016, the Government later downgraded them to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) vide G.O. dated 11.01.2019.

The petitioner’s grievance was that while Assistant Engineers of CAPE were retained as a “vanishing category,” his post was arbitrarily downgraded, despite clear records showing equivalence with Senior Superintendent. His representations and earlier litigation before the Tribunal failed, culminating in the impugned order of 04.03.2025.

Qualification Dispute – Is MBA a Postgraduate Degree?

Another contentious issue was the petitioner’s eligibility. The recruitment notification required “Post Graduation and MBA (II Class).” The Government argued that an MBA cannot be treated as a “Post Graduate” qualification, thereby disqualifying the petitioner.

The Court, however, noted that the petitioner’s appointment had never been invalidated on this ground and his probation was declared by the Government itself. It directed the Tribunal to also reconsider this aspect, observing:

“Whether without any departmental enquiry regarding the qualification of the petitioner for being appointed in the post of Special Officer, he can be denied the equivalent post, is one of the main points necessary to be considered.”

Parity with Engineers – The Vanishing Category Argument

The petitioner had further argued that while Engineers under CAPE were retained in their posts (though not part of the Medical Education Service) by treating them as a “vanishing category,” he was unfairly singled out for downgrading.

The High Court noted this parity claim and directed the Tribunal to examine it afresh, with reference to policy documents and precedents where such treatment was extended to similarly placed employees.

Tribunal to Rehear with Complete Records

Allowing the petition, the High Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was vitiated by failure to consider material records. It concluded:

“Since the Tribunal passed the impugned order without Exts.P9 and P10 orders before it and also without considering the point whether without any departmental enquiry regarding the qualification of the petitioner… he can be denied the equivalent post, the Tribunal can be directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.”

Accordingly, the judgment dated 04.03.2025 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

Date of Decision: 09.09.2025