The court affirmed that reassigned seniority dates must be honored for promotions, rejecting claims based on incorrect promotion dates and prior judgments.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Special Rules – Rule 31(a)(i) – Promotion – Petitioners challenged the promotion of juniors as Assistant Engineers, claiming seniority and entitlement to promotion – Court found that the petitioners were entitled to promotion based on reassigned seniority dates and that the respondents' reliance on prior judgments was misplaced. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 18)

(B) Seniority – The court emphasized that the reassigned dates of promotion should be considered for determining eligibility for promotion, rejecting the respondents' claims regarding actual promotion dates. (Paras 12, 14)

Facts of the case: Petitioners, having served over 15 years as Draftsman Grade-I, claimed promotion to Assistant Engineer, asserting their seniors were promoted temporarily, violating seniority rules.

Findings of Court: The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, directing their promotion as Assistant Engineers and granting all consequential benefits.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the promotions of juniors and the consideration of reassigned seniority dates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reassigned seniority dates must be honored, and the respondents' arguments based on previous judgments were not valid.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed the captioned writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and P4 orders issued by the 2nd respondent herein. By Ext.P3, the respondents 3 to 38 have been promoted as Assistant Engineers “temporarily” and by Ext.P4, the 39th respondent has also been promoted as Assistant Engineer “temporarily”. The petitioners’ claim in this writ petition is that they were also to be promoted as Assistant Engineers and insofar as their claim for such promotion “temporarily” has been denied, Exts.P3 and P4 require to be interfered with by this Court.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

The 1st petitioner joined the service of the Kerala Water Authority, represented by the 1st respondent herein as ‘Third Grade Overseer’ on 15.01.1982. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner joined as ‘Third Grade Overseer’ with the 1st respondent on 18.01.1985. It is pointed out that they were promoted as Draftsman Grade-II and then as Draftsman Grade-I subsequently. Such promotion as Draftsman Grade-I was on 21.02.2009 and the date of such promotion was subsequently reassigned as 26.10.1999 and 26.06.2000 respectively, as against the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners point out that they have been continuing as Draftsman Grade-I from 1999 and 2000 onwards respectively, having completed more than 16 years of service and not promoted to the cadre of Assistant Engineers while their juniors have been so promoted overlooking their seniority in the cadre of the Draftsman Grade-I. The petitioners point out that by Ext.P1 issued by the 1st respondent dated 06.01.2015, the provisional seniority list of Draftsman Grade-I as on 01.01.2015 was finalised wherein the 1st petitioner was finding a place at serial No.1029 and the 2nd petitioner at Serial No.1069. They point out that respondents 3 to 39 were finding places in Ext.P1 seniority list only from 1071 onwards and therefore, they were admittedly juniors to the petitioners in the said cadre. The petitioners also point out that even among respondents 3 to 39, a few of them were promoted as Draftsman Grade-I only on 17.04.2015 as evidenced by Ext.P2.

3. However, by Exts.P3 and P4 dated 03.10.2015 and 29.10.2015 respectively, respondents 3 to 39 have been promoted as Assistant Engineers “temporarily” invoking Rule 31(a)(1) of Part II KS and SSR. They have further pointed out that since the petitioners have already completed more than 15 years as Draftsman Grade-I and are admittedly seniors to respondents 3 to 39, the petitioners ought to have been considered for promotion in the cadre of Assistant Engineers “temporarily”. The 1st petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.2016 and the 2nd petitioner has also retired on 30.04.2018. It is in the above circumstances that the captioned writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to challenge Exts.P3 and P4 issued as above and also seeking further direction to respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioners as Assistant Engineer “temporarily” since they are admittedly seniors to respondents 3 to

39 in the cadre of Draftsman Grade-I.

4. A counter affidavit dated 26.06.2024 has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3, pointing out that the petitioners are not justified in placing reliance on the seniority list at Ext.P1, insofar as this Court in Writ Appeal No.467 of 2009 dated 27.06.2014 has set aside the judgment in O.P.No.33514 of 2001 of a learned Single Judge, leaving open all other contentions and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, with respect to the very same seniority list. It is further pointed out that as regards the ratio of promotees to the post of Assistant Engineers between Diploma holders and Certificate holders is 3:1, and since the Diploma holders should have completed two years of service and the Certificate holders should have completed five years’ service, out of which two years’ service should be in the cadre of Draftsman Grade-I, the case of the petitioners on the basis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document