The allegation is against the integrated seniority list prepared by taking into account the date of promotion to the feeder category instead of the date of appointment to the entry cadre based on Article 10(3) of the Special Rules.

Section Bench Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque And Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed as follows:

“Giving seniority to the feeder category on the basis of the date of promotion or to a lower category on the basis of the date of recommendation is a policy decision that requires consideration of various situations….if there is any anomaly in the aforesaid Rules, It is the competent authority to make the Rules that can resolve this issue but this is not the domain of the court .”

The petitioners, who were serving as Joint Block Development Officers, challenged the seniority list prepared for the post of Village Extension Officer (VEO).

It is submitted that under Rule 10 (3) the integrated seniority list for the current VEO Class I and Ms VEO Class I will be prepared as per the date of promotion and the position will be generally known as VEO Class I.

The petitioners argued that creating an integrated seniority list using Rule 10(3) would disadvantage persons currently holding VEO Grade I positions. People appointed to the entry-level Lady VEO Grade II position at a later date had higher seniority because they were promoted earlier due to vacancies in their category. The petitioners, therefore, submitted that holding Lady VEO above them by using their dates of promotion instead of taking into account their date of joining based on Rule 10 (3) violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the respondents submitted that there is no illegality in making the seniority list based on the date of promotion to feeder category as per Rule 10(3).

Relying on the Apex Court decision in the case of State Of Sikkim & Ors v. Adup Tshering Bhutia (2013), the Court observed: “Integrating different job categories and fixing their seniority among themselves is a complex process and can lead to individual complaints. However, this is not sufficient to override the Government’s policy decision or the legal rule enabling it, unless there is manifest illegality or arbitrariness.”

Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Elsy P. Sebastian and Others v. KLSudhamony and Others (2010) and Pankajaksy and Others v. George Mathew and Others (1987), the Court stated that anomalies in the Special Rules should be corrected at appropriate levels. and this cannot be a justification for the Courts to interfere with policy decisions. He said: “The court observed: “Only the delegate of the legislature, not the court, can act to remedy this situation.”

Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Application Counsel: Senior Advocate K Ramakumar, Advocates C.Dinesh, T.Ramprasad Unni, SMprasanth, RSAswini Sankar, THAravind

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates R Rajesh (Pullikada) (Ramamoorthy), Senior Government Advocate Nisha Bose

Case Number: OP(FLOOR) NO. 130 OF 2021

Case Title: Unni KE v. State of Kerala

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 733

Click to Read/Download the Decision