Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 910

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Maya P.C. and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Kerala and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 14916-14917 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 14918 of 2024, Civil Appeal No. 14919 of 2024
Decided On : 23-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kuriakose Varghese, Adv. Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr. Akshat Gogna, Adv. M/S. KMNP Law, AOR
(Item 1505.2) : Mr. Raghenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. Ms. Kaushitaki Sharma, Adv. Mr. Jayanth Muthu Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaimon Andrews, Adv. Mr. Piyo Harold Jaimon, Adv. Mr. Firdouse C P, Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Virkmani, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Virmani, Adv. Ms. Disha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Mohd Aman Alam, Adv. Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Ms. M.B.Ramya, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

Subsequent government order denying persons with disabilities promotion and seniority violates constitutional rights, as regular appointments entitles them to equal treatment under the law.

Headnote:(A) Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 - Government Orders dated 18th May 2013 and 3rd February 2016 - Denial of promotion and seniority to persons with disabilities employed under supernumerary posts based on subsequent government order is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 23 and 24)

(B) Employment - Regularization and seniority - Reappointment of physically disabled persons on supernumerary posts must conferred due rights to seniority and promotion after regularization; subsequent G.O. attempting to deny such rights was ruled unconstitutional. (Paras 23 and 24)

Facts of the case:
Appellants with benchmark disabilities, initially hired temporarily under KS & SSR, were reappointed under G.O. dated 18th May 2013 against supernumerary posts, but faced restrictions under a later G.O. from 2016 regarding seniority and promotion.

Findings of Court:
The court found the restrictions in the 2016 G.O. discriminatory, restoring previously granted rights of promotion and seniority to the appellants.

Issues: Whether the subsequent G.O. can strip appellants of rights to seniority and promotion after regular appointment and if such denial violated constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the appellants were regularly appointed, they are entitled to equal treatment and benefits as regular employees; the 2016 G.O. unconstitutionally negated these rights.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the appellants' appointments and g.o. implications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments by appellants regarding rights and discrimination. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. court's analysis on g.o. interpretations and derogation of rights. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. final decision to restore prior judgments favoring appellants. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The appellants in these Civil Appeals are persons with benchmark disabilities, each with a physical disability exceeding 40%. They were engaged in various public institutions in the State of Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (for short “the KS & SSR”) which governs temporary appointments made in public interest, for a period not exceeding 179 days.

2. By a Government Order (for short “the G.O.”) dated 18th May 2013, the State Government of Kerala (first respondent) resolved to regularise the services of 2,677 physically disabled persons against supernumerary posts, who had been engaged temporarily through employment exchange under Rule 9(a)(i) of the KS & SSR between 16th August 1999 and 31st December 2003. According to the said G.O. the appellants were to be reappointed to supernumerary posts created solely for their absorption. The said G.O. further stipulated that such supernumerary posts would stand abolished upon the retirement of the incumbents.

3. Pursuant to the above G.O., the appellants were reappointed on a regular basis in their respective departments. However, by a subsequent G.O. dated 3rd February 2016, the first respondent, inter alia, declared that such reappointed persons shall not be eligible for declaration of probation, inclusion in the combined seniority list, or consideration for promotion.

4. The appellants, feeling aggrieved by the imposition of these restrictions, adopted their remedies as discussed herein below. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid common facts that the cases of individual appellants must now be adverted to.

5. In this batch of Civil Appeals, Civil Appeal Nos. 14915 of 2024, 14916-17 of 2024 & 14918 of 2024 arise out of a common impugned judgment dated 1st February 2021, delivered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Whereas, Civil Appeal No. 14919 of 2024 arises out of the impugned judgment dated 5th March 2021, delivered by the co-ordinate Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by relying upon the above judgment dated 1st February 2021.

6. Civil Appeal No. 14915 of 2024

6.1 The appellants herein were appointed as Assistants in Mahatma Gandhi University (second respondent), through employment exchange for 179 days under Rule 9(a)(i) of KS & SSR, between 16.08.1999 and 31.12.2003. Pursuant to G.O. dated 18th May 2013 and 7th August 2013, appellant nos. 1 to 10 were reappointed by an order dated 10th December 2013, and appellant nos. 11 and 12 were reappointed by a subsequent order dated 27th March 2014. Notably, appellants Nos. 11 and 12 were earlier holding regular posts as peons in the revenue department and had resigned from their posts to avail themselves of the benefit under the G.O. dated 18th May 2013.

6.2 Upon completion of probation and passing the requisite departmental tests, the appellants were included in the final seniority list of assistants. However, following the G.O. dated 3rd February 2016, their names were excluded from the combined seniority list, and they were denied the benefit of promotion.

6.3 The appellants challenged the said G.O. dated 3rd February 2016 by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9832 of 2016 before the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 13th September 2017 and directed the respondents to grant the petitioners the benefits of seniority, declaration of probation, and promotion. The learned Single Judge held that G.O. dated 3rd February 2016 was contrary to the principles of equality and fair treatment and