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 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 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 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 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, t