KWA Service | Once Appointed As Assistant Engineer, Right To Opt For Degree Or Diploma Quota For Promotion Remains Open: Supreme Court
27 Mar 2025 2:39 PM
The Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court's ruling on a seniority dispute between Kerala Water Authority's 'directly recruited' and 'promoted' Assistant Engineers. The Court held that Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (Subordinate Service Rules) and Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (Special Rules) govern completely separate cadres. The court further held that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules applies only after appointment as Assistant Engineer, and cannot be applied for lower promotions.
Background
Six employees of the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) were initially employed as Draftsmen and later promoted to Assistant Engineers. Four of them joined between 2005 and 2014 and were promoted to Assistant Engineers between 2015-2018. Two private respondents - Anoop VS and Bindu S - had joined directly as Assistant Engineers in 2005 and 2017 respectively.
A seniority list released by KWA showed the original Draftsmen as senior to the two directly recruited Assistant Engineers. This was challenged before the Kerala High Court. The two private respondents argued that the other employees had been promoted under the 'diploma quota' and could not later claim benefits under the 'degree quota.'
The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of KWA and private respondents. It was held that Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules required promoted engineers to choose either the diploma or degree quota at the time of their promotion. The Division Bench upheld this decision, stating that employees who entered through the diploma quota could not switch to the degree quota later for further promotions. Aggrieved, Sajithabhai and other similarly situated employees approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Senior counsel Mr. Nikhil Goel, representing Sajithabhai, argued that the High Court erred in applying Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules at the stage of promotion to Assistant Engineer. He argued that appointments to Assistant Engineer are governed solely by the Subordinate Service Rules, which provide for recruitment through direct entry (60%) and promotion (40%). Under this scheme, 6% of the direct recruitment quota is reserved for in-service Draftsmen with engineering degrees. He argued that Sajithabhai, despite qualifying for the 6% quota, was promoted under the 40% quota.
Further, Goel submitted that the Special Rules apply only to promotions from Assistant Engineer to Assistant Executive Engineer. Rule 4(b) and its proviso gives an option to Assistant Engineers seeking further promotion but do not dictate how an individual becomes an Assistant Engineer. He further contended that the High Court's interpretation would unfairly disadvantage meritorious candidates who had both a diploma and degree, as it would allow a junior diploma-holder who obtained a degree later to surpass a senior.
Senior counsel Mr. V. Chitambaresh represented Kerala Water Authority and the private respondents. He argued that once the employees chose to be promoted under the diploma quota, they could not later claim seniority based on their degree qualifications. He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Chandravathi P.K. v. C.K. Saji (2004 INSC 101), which held that once an employee opts for a particular quota, they cannot later switch between diploma and degree streams for promotions.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court first clarified that the Subordinate Service Rules and Special Rules govern different stages of employment. The Subordinate Service Rules apply to recruitment and promotion up to Assistant Engineer, while the Special Rules govern promotions beyond this rank. The Court held that the High Court erred in applying Rule 4(b) to appointments as Assistant Engineers, as this rule is relevant only for higher promotions.
Secondly, the Court held that Rule 4(b) gives an Assistant Engineer (regardless of their mode of entry) the option to choose between degree or diploma quota for promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer. The court rejected the High Court's finding that direct recruits and promotees must be placed in separate categories for seniority purposes. Instead, the Supreme Court ruled that once an individual becomes an Assistant Engineer, their future promotions are governed by a uniform framework.
Thirdly, the Court also dismissed the reliance on Chandravathi P.K., noting that the issue in that case was unrelated to the present matter. The court clarified that Chandravathi P.K. dealt with weightage for pre-degree service in determining eligibility for promotion, while the present case is about the applicability of Rule 4(b).
Finally, the Court held that the High Court's interpretation would create an arbitrary distinction disadvantaging meritorious candidates. The court illustrated that a junior diploma-holder who obtained a degree after promotion could overtake a senior diploma-degree holder, leading to absurd results. Citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO (1981 INSC 160), the Court reiterated that statutory interpretation must avoid such irrational and unintended consequences.
Thus, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgments. Restoring the seniority lists as originally published, the court held that promoted Assistant Engineers are not bound by their initial quota selection and may exercise their option under Rule 4(b). However, the court clarified that this applies only when seeking promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer.
Decided on: March 18, 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 358 | Sajithabhai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors.
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Nikhil Goel
Counsel for the Private Respondents: Mr. V. Chitambaresh
