Giving Seniority To Feeder Or Lower Category Is Policy Decision; Competent Authority Can Make Rules & Not Court: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court held that, giving seniority to a feeder category or lower category is a policy decision and the competent authority can make Rules in this regard but not the Court.

The Court held thus in a Petition preferred by Joint Block Development Officers against the Order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed, “Giving seniority on the basis of the date of promotion to the feeder category or on the basis of the date of advice to a lower category is a policy decision that requires evaluation of various circumstances. … if there is any anomaly in the abovesaid Rules, it is the authority competent to make the Rules that can remedy it, but it is not the domain of this court.”

Senior Advocate K. Ramakumar appeared for the Petitioners while Senior Government Pleader Nisha Bose appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background -

The Petitioners who were working as Joint Block Development Officers had challenged the final seniority list of the Village Extension Officers (VEOs), which was published in 2014. They alleged that the same was prepared without considering their objection to the provisional seniority list and without removing the anomalies in the Kerala General Subordinate Service Posts in the Rural Development Department (Amendment) Special Rules, 2008. It was averred that several juniors were placed above them in the seniority list as the same was prepared based on the date of promotion to the feeder category instead of their service seniority based on the date of appointment to the entry post.

The Petitioners were advised by the PSC in 1991 as VEO (Trainee). After the training, they were appointed as VEOs Grade II, in 1992. They were promoted as Joint Block Development Officers in 2013 and 2014, respectively. In the meanwhile, the Government amended the Special Rules, and thereby the posts of VEO/Lady VEO were integrated up to the post of Joint Block Development Officer. Rule 10(4) of the amended Rules provides that the integrated seniority list of VEO Gr.II will be prepared based on the date of advice. But, as per Rule 10(3), the integrated seniority list of existing VEO Grade I and Lady VEO Grade I would be prepared based on the date of promotion, and the post will be commonly designated as VEO Gr.I.

It was contended that such a treatment in Rule 10(3) caused serious prejudice to the existing VEO Gr. I. The anomaly in the said rule was pointed out by the aggrieved persons and resultantly, the Secretary of the Local Self Govt. (ERB) Department issued a letter to the Government, requesting modification of the Rules to limit the scope of integration only to the newly recruited VEOs, but it was not acted upon. It was further contended that, by placing the Lady VEOs above the Petitioners who joined the service much earlier than them, the Government ignored the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the principles evolving from Rule 35 of Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules. It was also contended that the Kerala Administrative Tribunal completely overlooked the legal questions raised by the Petitioners and decided the issue without imbibing the settled principles of law.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… integrating different categories of posts and fixing their inter se seniority is a complicated process, and it may result in individual grievances. However, that is not sufficient to nullify the policy decision of the Government or the enabling statutory rule unless there is manifest illegality or arbitrariness.”

The Court said that the situation in this case is not different. It added that, whether the operation of Rule 10(3) of the Special Rules amounts to an anomaly or not is a matter depending on various facts and circumstances.

“If the proposition of the petitioners is accepted and the service seniority in the entry-level category is considered for all further promotions, the actual length of service in the feeder category will become irrelevant”, it further said.

The Court also enunciated that, when two categories merge into a common pool, further differentiation on the basis of length of service in the entry cadre, rather than the tenure in the feeder post, itself may be termed as discriminatory, depending on the circumstances.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s findings.

Cause Title- Unni K.E. v. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:85604)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Ramakumar, Advocates C. Dinesh, T. Ramprasad Unni, S.M. Prasanth, R.S. Aswini Sankar, and T.H. Aravind.

Respondents: Sr. Govt. Pleader Nisha Bose and Advocate R. Rajesh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment