The Battle for Seniority: A Landmark Decision on Employee Rights in Kerala's Healthcare Sector


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Geetha V.M. v. Rethnasenan K.

Citation: 2025 INSC 33. [PDF]

Introduction

This case involves a dispute over inter-se seniority between employees of the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) who were absorbed into the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) and the original employees of DME. The core issue arose from a policy decision by the Kerala government to abolish the dual control system in medical colleges. This dual control system meant that while the medical colleges were under the administrative authority of DME, the nursing, paramedical, and ministerial staff remained under the control of DHS. This arrangement led to administrative difficulties, causing delays in staff postings and challenges in maintaining discipline.

To resolve these issues, the government decided to transfer control of staff from DHS to DME. The government issued orders to shift posts and allow DHS staff to opt for absorption into DME. This led to a conflict regarding how the seniority of the absorbed employees should be determined. The DHS employees argued that their seniority should be maintained based on their original date of appointment in DHS, while the original DME employees contended that the absorbed employees should be treated as junior and their seniority reckoned from the date they joined DME.

The Supreme Court's ruling in this case is significant as it clarifies the distinction between transfers based on government policy (absorption) and transfers based on employee request, particularly when determining seniority. The Court emphasized that a mere option exercised by an employee under a policy decision is different from requesting a transfer on personal grounds. This judgment has far-reaching implications for future cases involving inter-departmental transfers and seniority disputes, providing a clear framework for interpreting service rules and government policies.

Case Summary

  1. The dispute arose from a policy decision by the Kerala government to abolish the dual control system in medical colleges, which had created administrative issues.
  2. The government decided to transfer staff from DHS to DME and gave DHS employees the option to be absorbed into DME.
  3. The central issue was whether the absorbed DHS employees should retain their original seniority from DHS or have their seniority calculated from the date of joining DME.
  4. The absorbed employees argued that they should retain their original seniority based on their initial appointment in DHS, and that their transfer was due to government policy, not a personal request.
  5. Original DME employees argued that the transfer of DHS employees was an inter-departmental transfer on request, so seniority should be determined from their date of joining DME.
  6. The Single Judge of the High Court initially ruled in favor of the absorbed employees, stating they should retain their original seniority from DHS.
  7. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the Single Judge’s ruling, holding that the absorbed employees' seniority should be determined from the date of joining DME, as it was an inter-departmental transfer on request.
  8. The Supreme Court overturned the Division Bench’s order and upheld the Single Judge's decision, ruling that the transfer of DHS employees was an absorption based on government policy.
  9. The Supreme Court held that the absorbed employees should retain their original seniority from their date of appointment in DHS, as per Rule 27(a) and 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SS Rules) and a clarificatory letter dated 24.04.2010.
  10. The Supreme Court differentiated between transfers on request and absorption due to a policy decision, clarifying that the option exercised by DHS employees was not a personal request.

Study Guide

  1. What was the primary dispute between the employees of the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) and the Directorate of Medical Education (DME)?
    • The main issue was how to determine the seniority of DHS employees who were absorbed into DME. They wanted to retain their seniority from DHS, but DME employees argued they should be placed at the bottom of the list.
  2. How did the dual control system create administrative issues?
    • The dual control system meant that medical colleges were under DME's control, but the staff were under DHS, causing delays in postings, disciplinary challenges, and administrative difficulties.
  3. What motivated the Government of Kerala to abolish the dual control system?
    • The government aimed to streamline administration and improve efficiency in public health services. Committees recommended abolishing dual control for better management of medical colleges.
  4. Explain the significance of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 25.10.2008.
    • This G.O. formalized the transfer of staff from DHS to DME, offering DHS employees the option to move to DME. It also stated that the seniority of the opted staff would be maintained as per the KS&SS rules.
  5. What did the Single Judge rule regarding the seniority of absorbed employees?
    • The Single Judge ruled that the absorbed employees were entitled to their past seniority from DHS, because it was not a voluntary inter-departmental transfer.
  6. Why did the original DME employees file Writ Petitions?
    • The original DME employees believed that the absorbed employees should be placed at the bottom of the seniority list upon joining DME based on rules of inter-departmental transfer, making them junior to all original employees.
  7. How did the Division Bench of the High Court reverse the Single Judge’s ruling?
    • The Division Bench held that the transfer was an inter-departmental transfer on request, so the absorbed employees' seniority should be determined from their date of joining DME.
  8. What is the difference between ‘absorption’ and ‘transfer’ in this case?
    • "Absorption" means becoming a permanent part of the new department, while "transfer" suggests a temporary move, with seniority beginning with the date of the transfer, rather than retaining previous seniority.
  9. Explain the difference between ‘option’ and ‘request’ as used in this case.
    • ‘Option’ means the right to choose, allowing employees to select between joining DME or remaining with DHS, while ‘request’ is the desire for something to be granted, implying a voluntary choice by an employee.
  10. What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court and the reasons behind it?
    • The Supreme Court ruled that the transfer was by absorption based on a government policy decision, not a transfer on request, and the absorbed employees should retain their past seniority from DHS as per rules 27(a) and 27(c) of the KS&SS rules.

Rationale

  1. The Court emphasized that the transfer of DHS employees to DME was a result of the government's policy decision to abolish the dual control system. It was not a case of employees requesting a transfer but a move to implement the policy, with employees given the "option" to join the DME.
  2. The Court differentiated between a transfer on request and an absorption due to a policy decision. The court defined absorption as taking something in, making it part of the new department, similar to amalgamation, not a simple transfer.
  3. The Court differentiated between the terms ‘option’ and ‘request’. An option is a right to choose, while a request is a formal asking for something. The option exercised by DHS employees was not the same as a request for a transfer.
  4. The Court interpreted the proviso to Rule 27(a) of the KS&SS Rules as applying only to voluntary inter-departmental transfers and not to transfers due to policy decisions where employees are essentially absorbed into a new department.
  5. The Court stressed the word “maintained” in Rule 8 of Appendix I, indicating that the government’s intent was not to dilute the seniority of the transferred employees but to preserve their seniority from DHS in their new roles in DME.
  6. The Court referred to a similar case from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ‘Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab’, which supported absorption with past service. The Court cited K.P. Sudhakaran's case, but stated that it was in the context of voluntary inter departmental transfers on request, and thus did not apply to the present case of transfer based on policy decision.
  7. The Court noted that the transfer by absorption was for better administrative control and therefore in the public interest, thus it could not be considered a transfer by request.
  8. The Supreme Court held that the absorbed employees’ seniority should be determined based on their original date of appointment in DHS, as per Rule 27(a) and 27(c) of the KS&SS Rules, and as clarified by the government's letter dated 24.04.2010.

FAQ

Q.1. What was the main issue of contention in this case?

Answer: The main issue was whether the employees who were absorbed from the Directorate of Health Services (DHS) into the Directorate of Medical Education (DME) should retain their original seniority from DHS or have their seniority calculated from the date they joined DME.

Q.2. What was the 'dual control system' that was abolished?

Answer: The 'dual control system' was an administrative structure where medical colleges were under the DME, but the nursing, paramedical, and ministerial staff were under the DHS. This caused administrative issues and delays.

Q.3. What prompted the Kerala government to abolish the dual control system and how did it lead to the transfer of employees?

Answer: The Kerala government abolished the dual control system to improve administrative efficiency. The government transferred posts and employees from DHS to DME, with the existing staff given an option to move to DME.

Q.4. What are the key rules under the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SS Rules) that are relevant to this case?

Answer: Rule 27(a) generally determines seniority by the date of first appointment. The proviso to this rule states that in cases of inter-departmental transfers on request, seniority is determined by the date of joining the new department. Rule 27(c) deals with seniority for individuals appointed on the advice of the Public Service Commission.

Q.5. What arguments were put forth by the absorbed employees?

Answer: The absorbed employees argued that their transfer was not a voluntary request, but a consequence of the state’s policy decision and they should retain their original seniority from DHS. Additionally, the government had shifted their "lien" to DME, which implies protection of their prior service.

Q.6. What arguments were put forth by the original employees of DME?

Answer: The original employees argued that the transfer of DHS employees was an inter-departmental transfer on request, and therefore, the absorbed employees’ seniority should be determined from the date of their joining DME.

Q.7. What was the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter and why?

Answer: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the absorbed employees, stating their transfer was an absorption based on a policy decision, not a transfer on request. The Court upheld their seniority as per Rules 27(a) and (c) based on initial appointment dates in DHS.

Q.8. What was the significance of the terms 'option,' 'request,' and 'absorption' in this judgment?

Answer: ‘Option’ was defined as a choice given to employees, while ‘request’ is an active demand or petition from the employee. "Absorption" implies that the employee becomes an integral part of the new department, retaining prior service benefits. The Court clarified that this "option" was part of the government’s policy and not a voluntary request for transfer.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Geetha V.M. v. Rethnasenan K. is a significant ruling that clarifies the distinction between transfers due to government policy (absorption) and those made at the request of an employee. By emphasizing the intent behind government orders and the significance of the term "maintained" in the context of seniority, the court has provided a clear framework for resolving future disputes on inter-departmental transfers and seniority in Kerala's public sector. The judgment also reinforces that administrative decisions made in the public interest should not be equated with transfers made at an employee's request, safeguarding the rights of employees who are moved as part of policy changes.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more