Geetha V.M. & Ors. Vs. Rethnasenan K. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3997 of 2024]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Geetha V.M. & Ors. vs. Rethnasenan K. & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3997 of 2024], delivered its judgment on January 3, 2025, concerning the issue of inter-se seniority of employees absorbed from the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) into the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) following the abolition of the dual control system in Kerala’s medical colleges.
Facts and Background
The Government of Kerala, in 2007, abolished the dual control system under which medical college staff were managed by both DHS and DME. As part of this administrative reform, around 3,072 employees working under DHS were absorbed into DME after exercising an option for absorption. The question arose regarding the inter-se seniority of these absorbed employees vis-à-vis the original employees of DME.
The absorbed employees contended that their seniority should be preserved as per Rule 8 of Appendix I to the Government Order, while the original DME employees argued that the absorbed employees’ seniority should be reset as per Rule 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS&SS Rules), which applies to transfers on personal request.
The Kerala High Court’s Single Judge upheld the preservation of seniority for absorbed employees, but the Division Bench reversed this, holding that the transfers amounted to personal requests, thereby affecting seniority.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court examined:
Whether the absorption of employees from DHS to DME was an administrative transfer in public interest or a transfer on personal request.
The applicability of Rules 8 and 27(a) of the KS&SS Rules regarding seniority.
The principles governing seniority preservation in cases of administrative absorption.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, through Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal, held that the absorption was a policy decision taken in public interest and not a transfer on personal request. The appellants exercised the option for absorption in line with the government’s policy, which aimed to improve administrative efficiency by abolishing dual control.
The Court clarified that Rule 27(a), which resets seniority for transfers on personal request, does not apply to administrative absorptions effected by government policy. Instead, seniority must be preserved as per Rule 8 of Appendix I, ensuring that absorbed employees retain their original seniority.
The Court emphasized the government’s role as the best judge of administrative needs and upheld the principle that seniority should not be disturbed in cases of absorption done in public interest.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s judgment and restored the Single Judge’s ruling, directing the Kerala government to finalize the seniority list accordingly. The judgment:
Affirms that administrative absorptions preserve seniority.
Distinguishes between transfers on personal request and transfers in public interest.
Protects the rights of employees absorbed due to policy decisions.
Reinforces adherence to service rules and government orders in seniority matters.
This decision serves as a significant precedent in service jurisprudence, ensuring fairness and clarity in seniority disputes arising from administrative reorganizations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments