Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
Ranjith Kumar K. V. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Secretary To Government, Department Of Water Resources – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
(A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.)
The short issue in this original petition is as to the applicable rule in regard to the ratio in a matter of promotion to the post of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-II) between direct recruitees and promotees. Prior to 24/9/2010, the ratio was 3:1 between the direct recruitees and the promotes, as per the Special Rules applicable in the Water Resources Department. The Special Rules were amended with effect from 24/9/2010 and ratio was fixed as 1:1 between the direct recruitees and promotees. The total cadre strength is 20.
2. The Kerala Public Service Commission initiated direct recruitment to the above post. The petitioners, applicants before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, who were working in the feeder category of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-III) sought for a declaration that the vacancies will have to be filled in accordance with the ratio based on the amended rules and not based on the unamended rules.
3. As seen from the Governme
Promotion rights are determined by the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not necessarily by those when vacancies arose.
The court affirmed that recruitment quotas fixed by law cannot be altered by executive powers, ensuring adherence to established legal principles.
Statutory provisions of Recruitment Rules cannot be overridden by executive or administrative instructions.
Promotion ratios in public service cannot be challenged unless proven arbitrary or ultra vires; fixation is a policy decision within the executive's domain, not strictly bound by cadre strength.
Vacancies arising under older rules are not necessarily filled by those rules when new recruitment rules have been promulgated, barring vested rights.
Promotion criteria and eligibility are determined by the employer's discretion, and employees do not have a vested right to promotions under repealed rules.
Point of Law : Recruitment over and above notified vacancies is not in accordance with constitutional mandate of equal opportunity of unemployment, envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article