Sajithabai vs The Kerala Water Authority

2025 INSC 354 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1420-1422 OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.12873-12875 of 2024)

SAJITHABAI AND ORS. .…. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS. ..…RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J

1. Present Appeals have been filed challenging the common impugned

judgment and final order dated 18th March, 2024 passed by the High Court

of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2213 of 2023, W.A. No. 2206 of 2023

and W.A. No. 66 of 2024, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court

dismissed the writ appeals filed by the Appellants herein and affirmed the

judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ

petition filed by the private Respondents [original writ petitioners in WP(C)

5277/2023].

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

2. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel for the Appellants stated that Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

the present appeals have been filed on behalf of six employees of the Kerala JATINDER KAUR Date: 2025.03.18 16:09:29 IST Reason:

Water Authority who were inducted as Draftsmen-Grade-I. He pointed out

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 1 of 15 that four of these Appellants had joined on various dates in the year 2005,

while one had joined in the year 2001 and the sixth Appellant had joined on

13th February, 2014. He stated that the present set of Appellants were

promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on various dates between 2015-

16, except the sixth Appellant, who was promoted on 22nd September, 2018.

3. He stated that the two private Respondents – Mr. Anoop VS had

joined service directly as an Assistant Engineer on 08th May, 2017, while

Ms. Bindu S had joined service on 02nd March, 2005 as an Assistant

Engineer, but availed leave without pay during her probation period and

rejoined only on 18th October, 2015.

4. He stated that the present dispute arises out of the seniority lists dated

20th April, 2022 and 14th February, 2023 whereby the Appellants were

shown to be senior to the Respondents.

5. He stated that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition no.

5277/2023 filed by Mr. Anoop VS and Ms. Bindu S (the private

Respondents) relying on an erroneous interpretation of the Kerala Public

Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (hereinafter the ‘Special

Rules, 1960’) which, according to the Appellants, do not apply up to the

stage of promotion or appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer. He

submitted that appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer is solely

governed by a separate set of Rules called the Kerala Public Health

Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (hereinafter the ‘Subordinate

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 2 of 15 Service Rules, 1966’). He submitted that the Special Rules, 1960 require

employees to exercise an option, i.e. for their further promotions, whether

they want to be included in the ‘degree quota’ or the ‘diploma quota’.

According to him, the fundamental error in the impugned order was that

this requirement was read into the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 as well,

despite a similar provision not being present in the 1966 Rules. He

contended that employment in Kerala Water Authority is governed by two

different sets of Rules.

6. He further stated that in accordance with the Subordinate Service

Rules, 1966, an Assistant Engineer could either be appointed through direct

recruitment or promoted from the post of a Draftsman in a 60:40 ratio.

According to him, out of the 60% (sixty per cent) quota for direct

recruitment, 6% (six per cent) had been carved out for in-service Draftsmen

with an engineering degree. Further, the educational requirement for 40%

(forty per cent) promotion quota was set out in the Schedule, according to

which an employee must possess a diploma. Pertinently, for a Draftsman

holding an engineering degree, there was no requirement of giving an

option as to the category in which the appointment as Assistant Engineer

was sought – the 6% (six per cent) in-service direct recruitment or the 40%

(forty per cent) promotion.

7. He stated that insofar as the Appellants were concerned, it was not in

dispute that they all had obtained an engineering degree much prior to their

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 3 of 15 promotion as an Assistant Engineer. However, the Appellants had also

applied for direct recruitment in the 6% (six per cent) in-service quota and

despite being included in its Select List, the Appellants had declined their

appointments as they had already been appointed in the 40% (forty per cent)

promotional category before the declaration of results of the recruitment

exam in the 6% (six per cent) quota.

8. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel stated that the Appellants

having been promoted were governed for their future promotions to the post

of Assistant Executive Engineer by the Special Rules, 1960. He emphasised

that what applied to the Appellants or any other candidate seeking

promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer was Rule 4(b) of the Special

Rules, 1960. Since he laid special emphasis on Rule 4(b) and its proviso,

the same are reproduced hereinbelow: -

“4……

(b) [Vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers shall be filled up from among those in categories 1 or 2 in the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service in the ratio of 4:1 between—] (1) Persons possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in item (i) or in Section A in item (ii) of the Annexure, and (2) Those possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in Section B in item (ii) of the Annexure or those possessing the S.M.T. Overseers certificate, every 5th vacancy being allotted to the latter and the rest to the former.

A person who while holding [any of the posts in categories 1 and 2 of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service] passes Sections A and B of the A.M.I.E. (India) Examination shall be eligible for promotion as Assistant

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 4 of 15 Engineer against the quota allotted for those possessing the qualifications mentioned in item (i) or Section A in item (ii) of the Annexure only after the claims of all those who, on the date of his passing the A.M.I.E. (India) Examination, possessed the qualifications mentioned in item (i) of the Annexure have been considered:

Provided that it will be left to the option of such persons to continue among [those] possessing the qualifications mentioned in Section B in item (ii) of the Annexure and claim promotion against the quota allotted to them.”

9. He submitted that the aforesaid proviso would apply only once the

Appellants were seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Executive

Engineer. He stated that the method by which the Appellants became

Assistant Engineer was not covered by this proviso. He pointed out that it

was on this basis that the seniority list had been correctly drawn up by the

Respondent authority.

10. He submitted that the learned Single Judge while deciding the

challenge to the seniority list had held that there was a requirement of

giving an option between the Direct Recruitment Quota (degree quota) and

the Promotion Quota (diploma quota) even for the purpose of Subordinate

Service Rules, 1966. According to him, this was the solitary finding based

on which the writ petition of the private Respondents had been allowed.

11. He submitted that the learned Division Bench in the impugned order

had added one more reason while upholding the judgment of the learned

Single Judge, i.e. the Special Rules, 1960 did not permit switching by a

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 5 of 15 person who had obtained appointment as an Assistant Engineer under the

diploma quota to that of degree quota.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS

12. Per contra, Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the

private respondents stated that the Appellants herein declined the offer of

appointment in the 6% (six per cent) degree qualified draftsmen earmarked

for in service candidates though they were included in the ranked list. He

emphasised that the Appellants chose to get promoted from the category of

Draftsmen as diploma holders (promotion quota). He submitted that the

Appellants who were appointed in the diploma quota could not thereafter

switch over to the degree quota for further promotion.

13. He also contended that Rule 4(b) and its proviso of the Special Rules,

1960 applies to only those who, while holding the post of Assistant

Engineer acquire a degree qualification. He stated that as the Appellants

had acquired the degree qualification even before being promoted to the

post of Assistant Engineer and had declined promotion in the degree quota,

they were not entitled to the benefit of Rule 4(b) and its proviso of the

Special Rules, 1960. He contended that once a diploma-cum-degree holder

opted for diploma quota, he cannot switch over to degree quota and

thereafter revert to diploma quota depending on promotional avenues. He

submitted that ‘once a mortgage, always a mortgage’. In support of his

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 6 of 15 submission, he also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Chandravathi P.K. and Others. vs. C.K. Saji and Others, (2004) 3 SCC

734, wherein it has been held as under:-

“43. The State as an employer is entitled to fix separate quota of promotion for the degree-holders, diploma-holders and certificate-holders separately in exercise of its rule-making power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such a rule is not unconstitutional. The State therefore, in our opinion, cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily by giving an option to such diploma-holders, who acquired a higher qualification, so as to enable them to either opt for promotion in the category of degree-holder or diploma-holder. Such option was to be exercised by the officer concerned only. He, in a given situation, may feel that he would be promoted in the diploma- holders' quota earlier than degree-holders' quota and vice versa but once he opts to join the stream of the degree-holders, he would be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.”

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1-KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

14. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1/Kerala Water Authority

contended that the interpretation given to Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules,

1960 by the Courts below was erroneous. He submitted that Rule 4(b)

cannot be interpreted to mean that individuals who obtained a degree after

being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer are alone entitled to

migrate to the degree quota. He clarified that Rule 4(b) even allows

individuals who had obtained the degree qualification before being

promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer to migrate to the degree quota.

In support of his submission, he relied on the counter affidavit filed by the

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 7 of 15 Kerala Water Authority before the learned Single Judge. The relevant

portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“18. …….Thus Ext.R1(g) Rule [Rule 4(b) of Special Rules, 1960] provide a specific right for respondents 4 to 10 to change over their quota from diploma to graduate, if they had occurred degree qualification subject to the condition cited above. That is only after the claims of all those who on the date of his passing the examination, possess a degree qualification have been considered. The diploma engineers cannot march over the degree engineers, the date of acquisition of degree is a crucial date.

19. It is submitted that the facts and circumstances involved in Ext.P11 is factually different. In the said case, the petitioner therein was Assistant Executive Engineer, who opted to get his promotion under diploma quota and claiming further promotion as Executive Engineer under degree quota, which was challenged before the Hon’ble Court. In paragraph 2 of Ext.P11. The State as an employer is entitled to fix separate quota of promotion for the degree holder, diploma holders and certificate holders separately, in exercise of its rule making power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

20. The employer cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily by giving an option to such diploma holders, who acquired a higher qualification, so as to enable them to either opt for promotion in the category of degree holder or diploma holder. Such options are to be exercised by the employee concerned.

Therefore, in the light of aforesaid submissions, it is clear that the instant Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner does not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India…..”

REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

15. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel in his rejoinder submitted

that the question considered by this Court in Chandravathi P.K. (supra), as

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 8 of 15 reflected in paragraph 20 of the said judgment, has no relation to the issue

at hand. He stated that while deciding that question, certain observations

were made in paragraph 43 of the said judgment which related to the

validity of Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and in no manner could be read

to mean that a proviso similar to the one which existed along with Rule 4(b)

of the Special Rules, 1960 would automatically be imported into the

Subordinate Service Rules, 1966.

REASONING SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1966 AND THE SPECIAL RULES, 1960 ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT RULES THAT GOVERN TWO SEPARATE SERVICES

16. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties and having

perused the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view 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.

17. The Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 govern the appointment,

promotion and other conditions of service for various posts starting from

Lorry Driver to Junior Engineer (re-designated as Assistant Engineer with

effect from 05th December, 1978).

18. The Special Rules, 1960 govern the appointments and promotions of

four categories of posts, i.e. Assistant Executive Engineer (called Assistant

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 9 of 15 Engineer before 05th December, 1978), Executive Engineer, Superintending

Engineer and Chief Engineer.

19. Under the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, appointment to the post

of Assistant Engineer is by two streams i.e. direct recruitment quota (60%)

(sixty per cent) and promotion quota (40%) (forty per cent).

20. In the 60% (sixty per cent) direct recruitment quota, 54% (fifty-four

per cent) recruitment is on the basis of merit in an open exam (i.e. open

market) in which candidates possessing a degree can participate. The

balance 6% (six per cent) direct recruitment is on the basis of merit in an

open exam in which a degree qualified Draftsman can participate.

21. The 40% (forty per cent) promotion quota is filled up from

Draftsman/overseer on the basis of seniority, irrespective of the fact that

they hold a diploma only or both diploma and degree qualification.

22. The Appellants before this Court who were holding the post of

Draftsman/Overseer were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (i.e.

from Category no. IV to Category no. I) in 2015 on the basis of seniority as

draftsman in diploma quota under the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 i.e.

prior to the declaration of result on 21st March, 2017 of the 6% (six per cent)

direct recruitment exam in which they had also participated.

23. Consequently, the Appellants, at the stage of entering the Kerala

Public Health Engineering Service, never had the opportunity to opt or

choose for the diploma or degree quota. However, the two private

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 10 of 15 Respondents were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers as they were

successful in the direct recruitment exam in the degree quota.

RULE 4(B) OF SPECIAL RULES, 1960 HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO A STAGE PRIOR TO AN OFFICER BECOMING AN ASSISTANT ENGINEER

24. This Court is further of the view that 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 i.e. to the draftsman/overseer who

are holding both degree and diploma qualification and who exercise the

option of sitting in 6% (six per cent) competitive exam for promotion to the

post of Assistant Engineer. To put it differently, the said Rule 4(b) has no

relevance as to how the person was appointed to the feeder post (i.e. the

post of Assistant Engineer) in the service governed by the Special Rules,

1960. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge

has erroneously held that “directly recruited Assistant Engineers from the

open market and those promoted through the Departmental Quota are

considered under separate watertight categories. This distinction

necessitates maintaining separate seniority lists for each category, with

different promotional paths…….they chose promotion under the Diploma

quota and are thus ineligible for further promotion to Assistant Executive

Engineer under the Degree quota, as per the governing rules.”

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 11 of 15 ONCE A PERSON JOINS AS AN ASSISTANT ENGINEER, HE/SHE HAS THE OPTION TO MIGRATE TO EITHER THE DEGREE OR DIPLOMA QUOTA

25. This Court is also of the view that once a person joins as an Assistant

Engineer, i.e. the feeder post under a separate service governed by Special

Rules, 1960, then that person irrespective of how he/she has been appointed

to that post, has the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota,

provided he/she has obtained a degree or a diploma. 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, as promotion to the next higher post (i.e.

Assistant Executive Engineer) is in the ratio of 4:1 between persons

possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in item (i) or in Section A in

item (ii) of the Annexure (degree quota) and those possessing any of the

qualifications mentioned in Section B in item (ii) of the Annexure or those

possessing the SM.T. Overseers certificate (diploma quota) whereby every

5th (fifth) vacancy is allotted to the latter and the rest to the former.

INTERPRETATION PUT FORWARD BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IS ERRONEOUS

26. This Court is of the opinion that the interpretation put forward by the

private Respondents that Rule 4(b) and its proviso of the Special Rules give

an option/choice to choose a diploma or degree stream to only those who

while holding the post of Assistant Engineer acquire a degree qualification

is erroneous. Proviso to Rule 4(b) is not just a proviso to the paragraph

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 12 of 15 preceding it but to the entire Rule 4(b). The first para of Rule 4(b) when it

stipulates that vacancy in the category of Assistant Engineers (to be read as

Assistant Executive Engineer) shall be filled up from among those in

Categories 1 and 2 in the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 in the ratio of

4:1, takes within its fold all the officers serving as Assistant Engineer.

Consequently, the proviso which gives the option to such officers to choose

the diploma or degree quota means and refers to all the officers holding the

post of Assistant Engineer. The paragraph preceding the proviso clarifies

that the option to choose the stream shall be available to even those

Assistant Engineers who acquire the degree during their tenure as Assistant

Engineers. The proviso further clarifies as to how seniority of such

Assistant Engineers would be determined.

27. This Court is also of the view that if the interpretation put forward

by the Division Bench and the private Respondents is accepted, then it

would put the meritorious candidates in a disadvantageous position as

would be apparent from the illustration where ‘X’ being a

draftsman/overseer and holding both diploma and degree gets promoted to

the post of Assistant Engineer in the promotion quota, while another person

‘Y’ being junior to ‘X’ and having only a diploma gets promoted to the post

of Assistant Engineer in the promotion quota subsequently and while

holding the said post obtains a degree and thereafter exercises his option to

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 13 of 15 join the degree quota, will get an accelerated promotion and become ‘X’s’

senior.

28. It is trite law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of

construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion. That

is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute. [See: Hatzl

v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) EWCA Civ. 223].

29. This Court in K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and

Another, (1981) 4 SCC 173 has held as under: -

“6. …..It is now a well-settled rule of construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the legislature, the court may modify the language used by the legislature or even “do some violence” to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational construction (vide Luke v. Inland Revenue Commissioner [(1963) AC 557] )…..”

30. Further, this Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam,

Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025 has recently held as under:-

‘The presumption against absurdity is found in the brief observation of Lord Saville agreeing with his colleagues in the case of Noone [R (on the application of Noone) v. Governor of HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30]. Lord Saville says simply:

“I would allow this appeal. For the reasons given by Lord Phillips and Lord Mance, I have no doubt that by one route or another the legislation must be construed so as to avoid what would otherwise produce irrational and indefensible results that Parliament could not have intended.”

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 14 of 15 THE JUDGMENT IN CHANDRAVATHI P.K. (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESENT CASE

31. This Court is the view that the judgment in Chandravathi P.K.

(supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the

issue in the said case as articulated in paragraph 20, ‘whether in terms of

the scheme of the Kerala Engineering Service (General Branch) Rules,

diploma-holders are entitled to claim any weightage for the service

rendered by them prior to their acquisition of degree qualification in the

matter of promotion or transfer to higher posts’, is entirely different. Further, it is an admitted position (as per para 7 of the private Respondent’s

own counter affidavit) that the Chandravathi P.K. (supra) judgment is

inapplicable to the present case.

CONCLUSION

32. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed and consequently, the

impugned judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and the Division

Bench are set aside. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

...…...……………….J. [DIPANKAR DATTA]

……………….J. [MANMOHAN] New Delhi;

March 18, 2025.

Civil Appeal Nos.1420-1422 of 2025 Page 15 of 15