25 March 2025 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant judgment of The Secretary to Government Department of Health & Family Welfare & Another v/s K.C. Devaki., clarifying how transfers and reappointments of government employees impact their seniority, especially when such changes are made at the employee's request. The Court unequivocally stated that seniority in a new post is contingent on whether the transfer was initiated by the employer in "public interest" or by the employee "at their own request," with distinct consequences for each.

The ruling came in an appeal by the Government of Karnataka against a High Court order that had granted seniority to an employee, Smt. K.C. Devaki, from her initial date of appointment as a Staff Nurse in 1979, despite her cadre change to First Division Assistant in 1989 having been made at her own request on medical grounds.

The Case Background: A Staff Nurse's Cadre Change

Smt. K.C. Devaki, originally appointed as a Staff Nurse in 1979, requested a change of cadre to First Division Assistant due to a permanent medical condition (bronchitis) that incapacitated her from nursing duties. After due process, including a medical board examination and her explicit written consent to "take seniority below the last person" in the new cadre, the government issued an order in 1989 changing her designation. For 18 years, she continued in the new position.

However, in 2007, when a seniority list was released, she challenged it before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, arguing that her seniority should reflect her original appointment date of 1979. Both the Tribunal and the High Court ruled in her favor, leading the State of Karnataka to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework: 1977 Recruitment Rules and 1957 Seniority Rules

The Supreme Court's analysis centered on the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (Rule 16) and the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (Rule 6).

• Rule 16(a)(iii) of the 1977 Rules permits the appointment of an officer permanently incapacitated by bodily infirmity to a new post. Crucially, it allows such an officer to be appointed to a lower post if they consent. In this case, Smt. Devaki had explicitly consented to being placed below the last person in the new cadre.

• Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules draws a clear distinction between transfers made "in public interest" and those made "at the request of the officer."

  • Public Interest Transfers: Seniority is generally protected, as such transfers serve administrative exigencies.
  • Request-Based Transfers: The Rule explicitly states that if a transfer is made at the officer's request, "he shall be placed in the seniority list of the class or grade of service to which he is transferred below all the officers borne on that class or grade of service on or before the date of the transfer." This provision aims to protect the seniority of existing employees in the transferred cadre, preventing disruptions to their promotion prospects.

Supreme Court's Ruling: Protecting Existing Seniority

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred by blurring the distinction between these two types of transfers. It emphasized that a transfer made on medical grounds, while accommodating an employee's personal needs, still falls under the category of a transfer "at the request of the officer" and not "in public interest."

The Court highlighted that Smt. Devaki had given her explicit consent to accept the junior-most position in the new cadre, a condition stipulated in her transfer order. The Court also cited a similar precedent, M.K. Jagadeesh v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, where an identical undertaking by an employee seeking a similar cadre change on medical grounds was upheld, leading to seniority from the date of transfer.

Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled that the final seniority list released by the government in 2007, which placed Smt. Devaki's seniority from her date of entry into the First Division Assistant cadre (1989), was in consonance with both the 1977 Recruitment Rules and the 1957 Seniority Rules.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and reiterated that employees transferred at their own request must generally be placed below the existing junior-most employee in the new cadre to prevent adverse impacts on the seniority of those already serving there.