Integrating Categories And Fixing Seniority Based On Special Rules Is A Policy Decision, Not Court's Domain To Rectify Anomalies: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that integrating categories and giving seniority based on Kerala General Subordinate Service Posts in the Rural Development Department (Amendment) Special Rules of 2008 is a policy decision and any anomaly in it would be beyond Court's domain for rectification.The challenge is against the integrated seniority list which was prepared by considering the date of promotion to the feeder category instead of date of appointment to the entry post by relying upon Rule 10 (3) of the Special Rules The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed thus: “Giving seniority on the basis of the date of promotion to the feeder category or on the basis of the date of advice to a lower category is a policy decision that requires evaluation of various circumstances….if there is any anomaly in the abovesaid Rules, it is the authority competent to make the Rules that can remedy it, but it is not the domain of this court.”The petitioners working as Joint Block Development Officers have challenged the seniority list prepared for the post of Village Extension Officers (VEO). It is contended that as per Rule 10 (3), the integrated seniority list for existing VEO Grade I and Lady VEO Grade I would be prepared based on the date of promotion and the post will be commonly known as VEO Grade I. The petitioners contended that making integrated seniority list using Rule 10(3) would cause disadvantage to persons who are already holding the position of VEO Grade I. They claimed that persons who were appointed to entry-level Lady VEO Grade II position at a later date ended up with higher seniority, simply because they were promoted earlier due to the availability of vacancies in their category. The petitioners thus contended that placing Lady VEO above them by using their date of promotion instead of considering the joining dates by relying on Rule 10 (3) was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On the other hand, the respondents contended that there was no illegality in making the seniority list based on the date of promotion to the feeder category as per Rule 10 (3). The Court relying upon the Apex Court decision in State Of Sikkim & Ors v. Adup Tshering Bhutia (2013) observed that “integrating different categories of posts and fixing their inter se seniority is a complicated process, and it may result in individual grievances. However, that is not sufficient to nullify the policy decision of the Government or the enabling statutory rule unless there is manifest illegality or arbitrariness.”Relying upon High Court decisions in Elsy P. Sebastian and Others v. K.L.Sudhamony and Others (2010) and Pankajaksy & Others v. George Mathew & Others (1987), the Court stated that anomalies in the Special Rules must be rectified at the appropriate levels and that cannot be a ground for the Courts to intervene in policy decisions. It said, “The court observed that “Only the delegate of the legislature can act to remedy that and not the court”.Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Counsel for Applicants: Senior Advocate K Ramakumar, Advocates C.Dinesh, T.Ramprasad Unni, S.M.Prasanth, R.S.Aswini Sankar, T.H.AravindCounsel for Respondents: Advocates R Rajesh (Pullikada) (Ramamoorthy), Senior Government Pleader Nisha BoseCase Number: OP(KAT) NO. 130 OF 2021Case Title: Unni K E v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 733Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Integrating Categories And Fixing Seniority Based On Special Rules Is A Policy Decision, Not Court's Domain To Rectify Anomalies: Kerala HC

Tellmy Jolly

Tags