Seniority Dispute in Kerala Water Authority: Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Rules

The dispute over seniority and promotion within the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) led to an intense legal battle, culminating in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Sajithabai and Others vs. The Kerala Water Authority and Others. The case revolved around conflicting interpretations of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 and the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, affecting promotions from Draftsman Grade-I to Assistant Engineer and beyond.

Background of the Case

The appellants, six employees of the Kerala Water Authority, were initially inducted as Draftsmen-Grade-I and later promoted to Assistant Engineers on various dates between 2015 and 2018. In contrast, the private respondents, Mr. Anoop VS and Ms. Bindu S, were directly recruited as Assistant Engineers.

A dispute arose over the seniority lists published in 2022 and 2023, which ranked the appellants higher than the private respondents. The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of the private respondents, holding that the appellants had been incorrectly placed in the seniority list due to an erroneous application of rules.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The seniority lists were prepared correctly under the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, which govern appointments to Assistant Engineers.
The Special Rules, 1960, do not apply until after promotion to Assistant Engineer.
There was no requirement for diploma-holding draftsmen to opt for a ‘degree quota’ before promotion to Assistant Engineer.
The High Court’s interpretation erroneously imported provisions from the Special Rules, 1960, into the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966.

Respondents’ Arguments

The appellants had acquired engineering degrees before promotion but still opted for the ‘diploma quota’.
Once promoted under the diploma quota, they could not later claim seniority under the degree quota.
The Special Rules, 1960, apply from the point of appointment as Assistant Engineer, affecting further promotions.
The appellants’ interpretation would allow diploma holders to switch quotas at will, disrupting the seniority framework.

Key Supreme Court Observations

The Supreme Court carefully analyzed both sets of rules and found fundamental errors in the High Court’s reasoning. The Court observed:

“The Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, and the Special Rules, 1960, govern two separate services and cannot be conflated.”

“An Assistant Engineer, once appointed, has the right to opt for either the diploma or degree quota for future promotions.”

The Court noted that restricting seniority claims based on initial promotion pathways would create an arbitrary and unfair classification among Assistant Engineers.

Verbatim Arguments from the Judgment

The Supreme Court addressed the core issue of whether an Assistant Engineer, promoted through the diploma quota but possessing a degree, could later migrate to the degree quota. It ruled:

“Once a person joins as an Assistant Engineer under the Special Rules, 1960, he has the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota, provided he possesses the necessary qualifications.”

“To deny this option would lead to an absurdity where a less qualified individual promoted later could gain seniority over a more qualified individual promoted earlier.”

The Supreme Court also rejected the High Court’s reliance on Chandravathi P.K. vs. C.K. Saji, holding that the earlier case was factually distinct and had no bearing on the present issue.

Final Judgment and Conclusion

In its ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s judgment, restoring the appellants’ seniority. The Court reaffirmed that:

Seniority lists must be drawn based on the correct interpretation of the applicable service rules.
The Special Rules, 1960, apply only after appointment as an Assistant Engineer.
An Assistant Engineer, regardless of how they were promoted, can opt for the degree quota for further promotions.
The High Court’s ruling was based on an incorrect reading of Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960.

The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the application of service rules within the Kerala Water Authority, ensuring fair and consistent promotional pathways.

Petitioner Name: Sajithabai and Others.
Respondent Name: The Kerala Water Authority and Others.
Judgment By: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Manmohan.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 17-03-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sajithabai-and-other-vs-the-kerala-water-aut-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-17-03-2025.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipankar Datta
See all petitions in Judgment by Manmohan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category