Employee Opting Promotion Under Diploma Quota Ineligible For Further Promotion Under Degree Qualification Quota: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has laid down that an employee who had chosen to be promoted under the Diploma qualification Quota would be ineligible for further promotion under the Degree Quota. 

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was thus of the considered opinion that the inclusion of such persons in the Seniority List would be illegal. 

"Respondents 1 to 4 earned their Engineering Degrees while working as Draftsmen. Therefore, they could invoke the Note to Rule 2 of Ext.P4 Special Rules, seeking direct recruitment as Assistant Engineers in the 6% quota reserved for them or promotion under the Diploma quota. However, for obvious reasons, 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," the Court observed. 

The petitioners herein were included in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission (PSC) for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer from the open market in the Kerala Water Authority (KWA). 

The respondents 4 to 10, were appointed as Draftsman Group I in KWA. At the time of joining the service, some of them had the qualification of Diploma in Engineering and B.Tech Degree in Engineering. After entering service as Draftsman Grade I in the KWA, the rest of them acquired a B.Tech Degree. 

At this juncture, the PSC issued a notification inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer. It also invited applications for qualified in-service candidates possessing a Degree in Engineering qualification for direct recruitment in the 6% quota earmarked for departmental candidates.

After completing the selection process, the PSC published a ranked list for appointment of departmental candidates as Assistant Engineer in the 6% quota earmarked for them. 

Although the aggrieved respondents were included in the rank list for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers under the Departmental Quota on the basis of their possession of a Degree in Engineering, they declined appointment under the same, since they had already been promoted as Assistant Engineer on promotion by virtue of their possession of Diploma in Engineering in the 4% quota earmarked for promotion. 

The respondents 4-10 who were appointed on promotion as Assistant Engineers, submitted that they were entitled to get seniority under Rule 27 (a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, and would continue to be Assistant Engineers under Diploma Quota.

The petitioners however disputed that they were entitled to seniority since they had been directly recruited as Assistant Engineers with Engineering Degree qualification, and added that the respondents who acquired Engineering Degree while while continuing as Draftsman Grade-I, and subsequently got appointed as Assistant Engineer by promotion under the Diploma quota, would not be entitled to exercise an option to come over to the Degree quota for promotion to the category of Assistant Engineer. 

The petitioners thus challenged the seniority list which included the respondents 4-10. 

It is to be noted that as per the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1966, and the Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960, which provides the service conditions of employees in the Subordinate Service, and the Service Conditions of Senior Officers respectively, the appointment to the post of Junior Engineer/Minor Irrigation Supervisor shall be through Direct Recruitment and Promotion from category 4, and shall be in a ratio of 6:4. 

The provision further states that Diploma and Certificate Holders are to be promoted in a ratio of 3:1.

The Court in this case was thus faced with the question as to whether the respondents who got promotion to the category of Assistant Engineers in the Diploma holders quota would be entitled to come to the stream of Assistant Engineers who entered into service in the Degree quota for further promotion, in order to thereafter determine the legality and validity of the Final Seniority List, to the extent it includes the Diploma holders.

At the outset, it noted that insofar as in-service candidates such as respondents 4-10 were concerned, by virtue of their possession of qualification of Diploma in Engineering, they would be entitled to seek appointment to the category of Assistant Engineer by promotion in the quota earmarked for Overseers, and could also seek direct recruitment through PSC to the category of Assistant Engineer in the 6% out of 60% for direct recruitment if they possessed a Degree in Engineering.

It ascertained that as per the Rules, directly recruited Assistant Engineers from the open market and those promoted through the Departmental Quota are considered under separate watertight categories, which distinction necessitates maintaining separate seniority lists for each category, with different promotional paths. 

The Court observed that the respondents obtained their Degree qualifications while serving as Draftsmen, not as Assistant Engineers, and that they had sought promotion to Assistant Engineer within the 4% quota, holding a Diploma, although they had the option to seek promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer under the Degree quota.

"However, such a candidate would be ranked as the most junior among Degree holder Assistant Engineers as of the date they obtained their Degree. They are also eligible for promotion under the Diploma quota. However, the benefits of Rule 4 are exclusively available to Assistant Engineers who acquired their Degree while serving in that capacity," it added. 

The Court thereby determined that since the respondents had chosen promotion under the Diploma quota, they would thus be neligible for further promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer under the Degree quota, as per the governing rules, and their inclusion in final seniority list of Assistant Engineers for promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer could thus not be said to be legal. 

It thus quashed the seniority list to the extent it includes the respondents 4-10 in the final seniority list. 

Counsel for the Petitioners in WP(C) 27817/ 2023: Advocate P.C. Sasidharan

Counsel for the Respondents in WP(C) 27817/ 2023: Standing Counsel for KWA P.M. Johny, and Advocates Elvin Peter P.J., K.R. Ganesh, Gouri Balagopal, Abhijith K. Anirudhan, and Sreelekshmi A.S. 

Counsel for the Petitioners in WP(C) 5277/ 2023: Advocates Elvin Peter P.J., K.R. Ganesh, Gouri Balagopal, Abhijith K. Anirudhan, and Sreelekshmi A.S.

Counsel for the Respondents in WP(C) 5277/ 2023: Standing Counsel for KWA P.M. Johny, and Advocates Georgie Johny, P.C. Sasidharan, and N.K. Subramanian

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 8

Case Title: Sajithabai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. and connected matter

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27817 OF 2023 and WP(C) NO. 5277 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment