Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 354
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
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J
1. Present Appeals have been filed challenging the common impugned
th
judgment and final order dated 18 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
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.03.18
16:09:29 IST
Reason:
the present appeals have been filed on behalf of six employees of the Kerala
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
th
13 February, 2014. He stated that the present set of Appellants were
promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on various dates between 2015-
nd
16, except the sixth Appellant, who was promoted on 22 September, 2018.
3. He stated that the two private Respondents – Mr. Anoop VS had
th
joined service directly as an Assistant Engineer on 08 May, 2017, while
nd
Ms. Bindu S had joined service on 02 March, 2005 as an Assistant
Engineer, but availed leave without pay during her probation period and
th
rejoined only on 18 October, 2015.
4. He stated that the present dispute arises out of the seniority lists dated
th th
20 April, 2022 and 14 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,
th
every 5 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
th
effect from 05 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
th
Engineer before 05 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.
st
prior to the declaration of result on 21 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
th
5 (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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 354
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
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J
1. Present Appeals have been filed challenging the common impugned
th
judgment and final order dated 18 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
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.03.18
16:09:29 IST
Reason:
the present appeals have been filed on behalf of six employees of the Kerala
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
th
13 February, 2014. He stated that the present set of Appellants were
promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on various dates between 2015-
nd
16, except the sixth Appellant, who was promoted on 22 September, 2018.
3. He stated that the two private Respondents – Mr. Anoop VS had
th
joined service directly as an Assistant Engineer on 08 May, 2017, while
nd
Ms. Bindu S had joined service on 02 March, 2005 as an Assistant
Engineer, but availed leave without pay during her probation period and
th
rejoined only on 18 October, 2015.
4. He stated that the present dispute arises out of the seniority lists dated
th th
20 April, 2022 and 14 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,
th
every 5 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
th
effect from 05 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
th
Engineer before 05 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.
st
prior to the declaration of result on 21 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
th
5 (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