Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala High Court Judgment, Restores Seniority List, States “Assistant Engineers May Opt Between Degree and Diploma Quotas”
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court has allowed appeals filed by employees of the Kerala Water Authority, setting aside a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala and holding that Assistant Engineers have the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota for promotional purposes, irrespective of how they were initially appointed. The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan stated, “once a person joins as an Assistant Engineer…he/she has the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota, provided he/she has obtained a degree or a diploma.” The court concluded that the interpretation placed by the High Court on Rule 4(b) of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 was legally untenable.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court also recorded that “the present appeals are allowed and consequently, the impugned judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside.” The judgment has the effect of restoring the seniority of the appellants as drawn up by the Kerala Water Authority prior to judicial intervention.
The matter concerned six employees of the Kerala Water Authority who had been promoted as Assistant Engineers between 2015 and 2018 from the post of Draftsmen-Grade-I. The appellants held engineering degrees before their promotion and were later shown as seniors to two private respondents—Mr. Anoop VS and Ms. Bindu S—in seniority lists dated 20 April 2022 and 14 February 2023. Mr. Anoop VS had joined directly as an Assistant Engineer through the degree quota on 8 May 2017, while Ms. Bindu S had initially joined on 2 March 2005, but due to a leave without pay, her rejoining was recorded on 18 October 2015.
The private respondents had successfully challenged the seniority list before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala, who held that the appellants could not be considered in the degree quota and were bound by their prior promotions under the diploma quota. The learned Single Judge concluded that there existed separate promotional avenues for direct recruits under the degree quota and promotees under the diploma quota.
Challenging this interpretation, the appellants contended before the Supreme Court that their appointments as Assistant Engineers were governed by the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, which did not require them to choose between degree or diploma streams for their promotion as Assistant Engineers. The appellants argued that the Special Rules, 1960 only applied for further promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, and that no such option requirement existed at the Assistant Engineer stage under the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966.
On the other hand, the private respondents contended that since the appellants had declined appointment under the direct recruitment quota reserved for degree-qualified Draftsmen and instead accepted promotion under the diploma quota, they could not later migrate to the degree quota under the Special Rules, 1960.
The Kerala Water Authority, supporting the appellants, submitted that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960 allowed migration to either quota upon appointment as Assistant Engineer, irrespective of whether the individual had acquired the degree prior to or after their promotion.
The Supreme Court recorded that “the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and the Special Rules, 1960 are separate and distinct rules that govern two separate services comprising different categories of officers.” It found that the Subordinate Service Rules governed promotions to Assistant Engineer, while the Special Rules governed further promotions within the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service.
The Bench stated, “as Special Rules, 1960 deal with a separate service, its Rule 4(b) has no applicability to a stage prior to an officer becoming an Assistant Engineer.” The court concluded that the learned Single Judge’s finding that separate seniority lists must be maintained based on entry streams into the Assistant Engineer post was erroneous.
The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 4(b) governs promotions to Assistant Executive Engineer and is intended to give Assistant Engineers, regardless of their original mode of appointment, the choice to migrate to the degree or diploma quota for further promotion. The Bench stated, “the intent and purpose behind Rule 4(b) is to give an option to an Assistant Engineer to join either the diploma or the degree quota.”
The court rejected the private respondents’ contention that the rule applied only to Assistant Engineers who acquired a degree during service, stating that “Proviso to Rule 4(b) is not just a proviso to the paragraph preceding it but to the entire Rule 4(b).” The judgment further observed, “The first para of Rule 4(b) when it stipulates that vacancy… shall be filled up from among those in Categories 1 and 2 in the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966… takes within its fold all the officers serving as Assistant Engineer.”
The court recorded that accepting the interpretation urged by the respondents would lead to irrational consequences, where a junior officer acquiring a degree after promotion could surpass a senior officer who already possessed a degree but was promoted earlier. The Bench stated, “The more absurd a suggested conclusion of construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion.”
Referring to K.P. Varghese v. ITO and Bishwajit Dey v. The State of Assam, the court noted that statutory provisions must be interpreted to avoid irrational and unintended outcomes.
Lastly, the Bench held that the judgment in Chandravathi P.K. & Others v. C.K. Saji & Others had no relevance to the present case, observing that “it is an admitted position… that the Chandravathi P.K. (supra) judgment is inapplicable to the present case.”
The Supreme Court concluded by allowing the appeals, stating, “the present appeals are allowed and consequently, the impugned judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are set aside.” All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Senior Counsel
Case Title: Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 354
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
