Holding

The option exercised by DHS employees is a transfer by absorption in the public interest, not a request for transfer, so the proviso to Rule 27(a) does not apply and seniority is to be maintained as per Rule 27(a) and 27(c).

Summary

The case concerned employees of Kerala's Directorate of Health Services (DHS) who, under a government policy to abolish a dual control system, exercised an option to be absorbed into the Directorate of Medical Education (DME). The dispute was whether this option amounted to a transfer on request, invoking the proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, or a transfer by absorption in the public interest. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the option, the relevant statutory provisions, and the intent of the policy decision. It concluded that the move was a transfer by absorption, not a request, and therefore the proviso to Rule 27(a) does not apply. Consequently, the seniority of the absorbed employees must be maintained according to Rule 27(a) and 27(c), preserving their prior service. The Court set aside the Division Bench decision and allowed the appeals, directing the State to draw the seniority list accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the option exercised by DHS employees to join DME constitutes a transfer by absorption or a request for transfer under the proviso to Rule 27(a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.
Accordingly, from which date should the seniority and inter‑se seniority of the absorbed employees be reckoned?

Legislation cited

Subjects

TransferTransfer by way of absorptionExercise of optionAbsorbed employeesRequest for transferTransfer on requestMutual requestSeniorityInter‑se seniorityDirectorate of Health Services (DHS)Administrative control of DHSDirectorate of Medical Education (DME)State of KeralaPrimary Health Centres (PHCs)Community Health Centres (CHCs)Taluk HospitalsDistrict HospitalsSpecialty HospitalsPolicy decisionPublic interestAdministrative exigencyDual control systemHospitalsAdministration of medical collegesClarificatory letter

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 515 : 2025 INSC 33

Geetha V.M. & Ors.
v.
Rethnasenan K. & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3994-3997 of 2024)
03 January 2025
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the option exercised by Directorate of Health Services
(DHS) employees to join Directorate of Medical Education (DME)
pursuant to a policy decision of the State of Kerala ought to be
considered as an option for absorption or a request for transfer
under proviso to Rule 27(a) of Kerala State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1958 and in that situation, the inter-se seniority of
such employees in the DME shall be reckoned from which date.

Headnotes†
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 – Proviso
to r.27(a) – Kerala Service Rules, 1959 – r.36 – Transfer of
the appellants-absorbed employees by way of absorption as
per the policy decision of the Government of Kerala, if would
attract the proviso to r.27(a):
Held: No – The proviso of r.27(a) is merely an exception to the
said Rule of maintaining the seniority from the date of appointment
in the cases of ‘on request’ and mutual transfer – The exception
is not attracted in a case of transfer by way of absorption made
in public interest or in administrative exigencies – Transfer of an
employee is an incidence of service if it is in public interest –
Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and
utilise the services of an employee – However, if employee
makes a request due to some hardship and if the authority or
the Government on being satisfied, posts such employee as per
request, such transfer is not a transfer in public interest as it is
on the request of the employee and not in the exigencies of the
public administration – In the present case, the transfer was made
by way of absorption on the basis of option and not on the basis
of request which was in furtherance to a policy decision of the
Govt. to abolish the dual control system enhancing the efficiency
* Author
516 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of the administration of medical colleges and attached hospitals
thereto giving it to DME withdrawing from DHS – Therefore, the
transfer by way of absorption on exercise of option as specified
in Appendix I and II contained in G.O. dtd. 25.10.2008 does not
attract the proviso to r.27(a) which only deals with the transfer on
request or on mutual request – Thus, the action taken in public
interest due to administrative exigency even on option is different
than the action done on request – Appellants exercised the option
for absorption by transfer from DHS to DME in line with the policy
decision and thus, it cannot be considered as a case of transfer
based on their own request, volition or voluntary choice – Proviso
to r.27(a) is not attracted in case of a transfer by way of absorption
done by the Department in furtherance to the policy decision of the
Govt. – Transfer by way of absorption in public interest cannot be
equated with the transfer on request in contingencies as specified
in proviso to r.27(a) or applied mutually – Further, seniority of the
absorbed employee cannot be disturbed applying the proviso
of r.27(a) – Their seniority and inter-se seniority be maintained
as per r.27(a) and 27(c) of Part II of 1958 Rules r/w clarificatory
letter dated 24.04.2010 with reference to r.8 of Appendix I to G.O.
dated 25.10.2008 – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 37, 39,
47, 51-53]
Words and Phrases – ‘Transfer’; ‘option’; ‘absorb’; ‘absorption’ –
Discussed.

Case Law Cited
K.P. Sudhakaran and Another v. State of Kerala and Others (2006)
5 SCC 386 – held inapplicable.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1989 SCC OnLine P&H 482 –
approved.

Books and Periodicals Cited
P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 7th Edition; Corpus
Juris Secundum; Merriam-Webster Dictionary; Black’s Law
Dictionary.

List of Acts
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958; Kerala Service
Rules (KSR), 1959.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 517

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

List of Keywords
Transfer; Transfer by way of absorption; Exercise of option;
Absorbed employees; Request for transfer; Transfer on request;
Mutual request; Seniority; Inter-se seniority; Directorate of Health
Services (DHS); Administrative control of DHS; Directorate of
Medical Education (DME); State of Kerala; Primary Health Centres
(PHCs); Community Health Centres (CHCs); Taluk Hospitals;
District Hospitals; Specialty Hospitals; Policy decision; Public
interest; Transfer in public interest; Dual control system; Hospitals;
Administration of medical colleges; Administrative exigency; public
administration; Clarificatory letter; transfer applied mutually; ‘Option’;
‘Absorb’; ‘Absorption’.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3997
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2019 of the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos. 1418, 1525, 1527 and 1652 of 2010

Appearances for Parties
V. Giri, Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Advs., Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi,
Alim Anvar, Harshed Sundar, Mohammed Sadique T.A., Advs. for
the Appellants.
Jaideep Gupta, Raghenth Basant, Sr. Advs., C. K. Sasi,
Ms. Meena K Poulose, Riddhi Bose, Ms. Racheeta Chawla,
Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Siddharth Banerjee,
Dileep Poolakkot, Ms. Hima Bhardwaj, K. Rajeev, Arvind Gupta,
Advs. for the Respondents.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. The present appeals have been filed impugning the order passed
by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 13.03.2019 in W.A.
Nos. 1418, 1525, 1527 and 1652 of 2010, reversing the judgments
dated 29.06.2010 and 30.06.2010 passed by learned Single Judge
518 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

in W.P. (C) Nos. 4599, 12381 and 14091 of 2010 and W.P. (C) No.
20269 of 2010 respectively.
2. Appellants herein are the employees who were working in the
Directorate of Health Services (the “DHS”), later absorbed on
furnishing option as demanded, in the Directorate of Medical
Education (the “DME”) on account of abolition of dual control system
of the staff in medical colleges under the policy decision of the State
of Kerala. The rival claims of inter-se seniority between the original
employees of DME (hereinafter referred as ‘original employees’)
and absorbed employees from DHS in the respective categories of
DME (hereinafter referred to as ‘absorbed employees’) made by
both were decided by the order impugned.
3. Writ Petition No. 4599/2010 was filed by the absorbed employees
contending that they are entitled to retain their existing seniority
even on absorption in the DME in terms of Rule 8 of Appendix I of
the G.O. (P) No. 548/2008/H&FWD dated 25.10.2008. Since the
inter-se seniority of the absorbed employees was yet to be finalized,
during the pendency of the said Writ Petition, promotions made to
the post of Junior Superintendent and Upper Division Clerks in the
DME were cancelled.
4. In the meantime, the Government of Kerala issued clarificatory letter
No. 8195/K1/10/H&FWD dated 24.04.2010 (the “clarificatory letter”)
indicating that seniority of the absorbed employees shall be reckoned
from the date of order of promotion for the promotees and from
the date of first effective advice in case of direct recruits. The said
clarificatory letter was assailed by filing Writ Petitions Nos. 12381 and
14091 of 2010 by the original employees. The case set out was that
once the absorbed employees were transferred after exercising their
‘option’, in terms of G.O. (P) No. 548/2008/H&FWD dated 25.10.2008,
to join DME, they must rank junior and be placed at the bottom of
the seniority list and their seniority be reckoned from the date of
joining in the DME as per Rule 27(a) and Rule 27(c) of ‘Kerala State
and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (in short “KS&SS Rules”).
5. Learned Single Judge decided the writ petitions of the original and
absorbed employees by passing the common judgment and relying
upon Rule 8 of Appendix I of G.O. dated 25.10.2008 opined that
seniority of staff who opted to join DME will be maintained as per
Rule 27(a) and 27(c) of Part II, KS&SS Rules and the clarificatory letter
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 519

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

dated 24.04.2010. The Writ petition filed by the absorbed employees
was allowed and the Writ Petitions of the original employees were
dismissed holding that absorbed employees would be entitled to
retain their past service rendered in DHS and their seniority in DME
shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment in DHS.
6. On filing Writ Appeal by the original employees of DHS, the Division
Bench by the order impugned set-aside the judgment of learned
Single Judge and observed that once absorbed employees had joined
DME on their own request opting for inter-departmental transfer,
proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II of KS&SS Rules, would attract and
the seniority of the absorbed employees will be determined with
reference to their date of joining in the DME. The said order is under
challenge in these appeals.

Factual Background
7. Prior in time, DME was formed w.e.f. 10.05.1983, to manage and
coordinate Medical Colleges and Collegiate Hospitals in the State of
Kerala. Hospitals attached to medical colleges were under the control
of the DME, while Primary Health Centres (PHCs), Community Health
Centres (CHCs), Taluk Hospitals, District Hospitals and Specialty
Hospitals were under the control of DHS. Before formation of the
DME, medical colleges were operated independently but under the
administrative control of DHS and the ‘Principal’ was the head of
the department. After formation of DME, the authority of Principal
was transferred to DME, however, the ‘nursing, paramedical, and
ministerial staff’ associated with hospitals and affiliated institutions
continued to remain under the administrative control of DHS which
also included the power of appointment. This resulted in ‘dual control’,
where even though administrative authority of the medical colleges
and collegiate hospitals was shifted to DME, but the staff continued
to remain under the control of DHS, due to which significant delay
and administrative difficulties were being faced in ensuring timely
assignment/posting of Staff Nurses, Nursing Assistants, Technicians,
Attendants, Cleaning Staff, and other categories of Paramedical Staff
at Medical College Hospitals and affiliated institutions. Additionally,
Superintendents of Medical Colleges and Heads of Clinical
Departments were encountering tremendous hardship to maintain
discipline amongst staff inter-se departments. Resultantly, it posed
as an extreme impediment for the Government of Kerala to ensure
smooth functioning of both the Departments.
520 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

8. Elaborating on further challenges, particularly regarding appointments,
majority of the hospital staff was appointed either by the DHS or the
District Medical Officer. Although Hospital Superintendents had the
power to initiate disciplinary action, yet the power for appointments,
transfers, promotions, and discipline for these employees continued
to remain with the DHS or District Medical Officer. Identifying the
issues, the Government of Kerala formed several committees that
recommended elimination of dual control system in Medical Colleges
as a corrective measure, aimed for benefiting the public at large. To
cite few examples, as per Indian Medical Council regulations, “All the
teaching hospitals shall be under the academic, administrative and
disciplinary control of Dean / Principals of Medical Colleges or Medical
Institutions”; as per State Planning Board’s Working Group report
on Health, Nutrition and Sanitation on 10th Five Year Plan (2002 –
2007), the Principals / Superintendent of Medical Colleges have no
administrative or disciplinary control over the staff. Therefore, all the
above categories of paramedical and ministerial staff in Medical College
Hospitals and attached other hospitals have to be appointed directly
by DME and the existing staff must be given freedom to opt for either
DHS or DME and all new appointments must be done separately.
9. Further, the ‘Estimates Committee’ (1998 – 2000) of Kerala Legislature
in its 28th Report recommended that the employees working in the
Medical Colleges such as Nurses, Paramedical Staff are to be
bifurcated from DHS and are to be brought under the control of DME
and the existing staff should be given an opportunity to exercise
option. Subsequent thereto, ‘Estimates Committee’ (2001 – 2004) of
the Kerala Legislature reiterated that employees working in medical
colleges shall be brought under the control of DME and staff which at
present is in existing control of DHS should be afforded an opportunity
to furnish options either of DHS or DME. The State Government
after examining the recommendations in public interest accorded
sanction to abolish the dual control system for the Staff attached to
the Medical Colleges and Hospitals and brought them out from the
administrative and disciplinary control of DHS by issuing the G.O.
(MS) No. 124/2007/H&FWD dated 01.06.2007.
10. While according sanction, the State decided to ask for the options
from existing employees of the DHS to move to the posts which
stood transferred to DME. The relevant clauses of the said G.O. for
understanding are quoted herein below –
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 521

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

"1. The sanctioned posts of all categories of staff
(except doctors in Primary Health Centres who are
appointed by the Health Services Department) such
as Nursing, Paramedical and Ministerial Staff in the
hospitals under the Director of Medical Education will
stand shifted to the service of Directorate of Medical
Education w.e.f. 01.06.2007.
2. The employees of the Health Services Department
now working against these shifted posts shall be
treated as on deputation to the Directorate of Medical
Education, until further orders.
3. The existing employees of Health Services Department
will be given an opportunity to exercise opinion (sic)
to move to the posts transferred to the Director of
Medical Education. A committee will be constituted
under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Health),
with Director of health Services, as Convener for
discussions with service organizations regarding
rules for exercising of option, the arrangements to
be made in the Health Service Department due to
the transfer of these posts, promotion and other
service matters and for submitting recommendations
to Government.
4. The appointing authority of the transferred categories
of posts (except last grade service posts) will be
Director of Medical Education. The Principal will be
the appointing authority of last grade service posts.
5. (i) The appointment to the category / post of Nursing
Assistant now transferred to Directorate of Medical
Education shall be made by direct recruitment and
the special rules will be changed accordingly. The
Director of Medical Education will submit proposals
for qualification for direct recruitment to the post of
Nursing Assistant.
(ii) However, the existing vacancies of Nursing
Assistants are to be filled up by promoting the eligible
Hospital attendants after giving them training. Direct
recruitment as per 5 (i) above shall be done only to
522 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the remaining vacancies, after giving promotion to
all the eligible Hospital – Attendants.
(iii) Considering the acute shortage of staff, the Last
grade service special rules shall be deemed to be
modified in the public interest in the case of Directorate
of Medical Education only and the Principals are
permitted to make temporary appointment through
Employment Exchange to all the vacant posts in
the categories of Nursing Assistant and Hospital
Grade – I and II, except the vacancies to be kept
apart for promotion of eligible hands in these posts.
(iv) The Secretary (Health) is authorized to obtain
remarks from PSC if required for the implementation
of any of the above decisions and submit proposals.
(v) The steps to transfer of budget allotment for salary
and other items from Director of Health Services to
Director of Medial (sic) Education will be taken up in
consultation with Finance Department.”
xx xx xx xx
11. From the aforementioned G.O., it is also evident that State actively
intended to identify the issues and decided to address them involving
all the stakeholders. After extensive deliberations with all, the
Government of Kerala by G.O. (Ms.) No. 163/07/H&FWD, dated
16.07.2007, constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of
Additional Secretary (Health) to resolve the issues related to abolition
of dual control system. A meeting was convened on 10.10.2007 with
all the stakeholders inviting their views and suggestions. During
the meeting, highlighting the recommendations of the Estimates
Committee (1998-2000) and Estimates Committee (2001-2004),
consensus was reached to implement the same. After extensive
discussions, the committee framed the ‘Draft Rules’ for options,
‘Draft Option form’, and the qualifications required and method of
appointment for the categories other than the common categories
in DHS and DME, which were required to be absorbed.
12. The Government of Kerala vide G.O. (Rt.) No. 1273/08/H&FWD, dated
07.04.2008, and G.O. (Rt.) No. 2321/08/H&FWD, dated 05.07.2008,
also nominated Administrative Officer, Kerala Heart Foundation along
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 523

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

with Nodal Officers from DHS and DME to coordinate and oversee
the implementation of abolition of dual control system. Based on the
aforesaid, the Committee submitted the ‘Draft Rules’ and also the ‘Draft
Form of option’ to the Government for consideration and approval.
13. Having considered these recommendations, the State Government
issued G.O. (P) No. 548/2008/H&FWD dated 25.10.2008, partially
modifying the G.O. dated 01.06.2007 and directed that all the
ministerial staff, nurses, paramedical staff, including last grade
staff under the establishment of DHS working with the DME, shall
be brought under the administrative control of the DME, subject to
furnishing options as specified in the rules contained in ‘Appendix I’
and form contained in ‘Appendix II’.
14. Appendix I of the G.O. dated 25.10.2008 is titled as ‘Rules for filing
option by the staff, on abolition of dual control systems’. Rule 8
therein governs the seniority of staff who have opted for the DME.
This Rule is central to the present dispute and extracted for ready
reference below –
“…..8. The seniority of the staff opted to Department of
Medical Education will be maintained as per Rule 27(a)
and Rule 27(c) of Part II, KS & SS Rules.”
15. Appendix II of the said G.O. was for option which is in shape of a
form required details of the employee and declaration. The declaration
is relevant, which is extracted hereinbelow for ready reference –
“ DECLARATION
I, …. hereby opt to be absorbed / continued in the
Department of Medical Education and if my option is
accepted, I will not put forth any claim in future to return
to Health Services Department under any provisions.

Place: Signature:
Date: Name and Designation”
xx xx xx xx
16. In furtherance of the G.O. dated 01.06.2007 and G.O. dated
25.10.2008, an ‘Option Cell’ with officers from DHS and DME both
was constituted to scrutinize the option forms submitted by the existing
524 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

employees from DHS. After scrutiny, 3072 options against 6022
transferred posts were found valid, and the list of 3072 employees
‘seniority wise’ and ‘category wise’ was forwarded by DHS for
switching them to DME. In continuance, State Government vide
G.O. (P) No. 56/2009/H&FWD dated 27.02.2009, directed that 6022
posts under DHS establishment will be ‘shifted’ to DME. It was also
made clear vide Order No. PLA1-2462/05/DHS dated 28.02.2009
that lien of the employees whose names were forwarded shall stand
transferred from DHS to DME.
17. In the meantime, since the model code of conduct for the General
Elections of 2009 came into effect from 02.03.2009, therefore, the
said two G.O.s mentioned above could not be implemented. After
elections and on formation of new Government, in supersession of
the previous G.O.s dated 27.02.2009 and 28.02.2009, the G.O. (P)
No. 167/2009/H&FWD dated 17.06.2009 was issued directing that
3096 posts in 57 categories will be forthwith transferred to the DME,
and the DHS will issue orders transferring those employees category
wise and station wise. As such, the employees of DHS included in
the list be continued in DME, as per their options. The employees
of DHS not included in the list of DME were allowed to continue on
deputation as per G.O. 01.06.2007 until further orders.
18. In the meantime, clarifications were sought by the DME about
fixation of seniority of staff who opted for DME from DHS. The State
Government vide its clarificatory letter dated 24.04.2010 clarified
that the seniority of the staff who opted for DME, will be reckoned
as per Rules 27(a) & 27(c) of Part II, KS&SS Rules, i.e., as per
date of order of promotion in case of promotees and as per date
of first effective advice in case of direct recruits (entry cadre) in the
respective categories in the DHS.

Relevant Rules
19. In reference to the various G.O.s, the KS&SS Rules referred above
are also relevant, therefore, extracted here as under –
“27. Seniority – (a) Seniority of a person in a service,
class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced
to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date
of the order of his first appointment to such service, class,
category or grade.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 525

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

Explanation – For the purposes of this sub-rule,
“appointment” shall not include appointment under rule 9
or appointment by promotion under Rule 31.
This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force
with effect on and from the 17th December, 1958, but shall
not affect the seniority of any member of a service settled
prior to the date of publication of this amendment in the
Gazette:
Provided that the seniority of persons on mutual or inter-
unit or inter-departmental transfer from one Unit to another
within the same Department or from one Department
to another, as the case may be, on requests from such
persons shall be determined with reference to the dates
of their joining duty in the new Unit or Department. In the
case of more than one person joining duty in the same
grade in the same Unit or Department on the same date,
seniority shall be determined, –
(a) if the persons who join duty belong to different unit
or different departments, with reference to their age,
the older being considered as senior, and
(b) if the persons who join duty belong to the same category
of post in the same department, in accordance with
their seniority in the Unit or Department from which
they were transferred…….
(b) (This sub-rule is not relevant for the case)
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a)
and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to
a class, category or grade in a service on the advice
of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced
to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the
date of first effective advice made for his appointment
to such class, category or grade and when two
or more persons are included in the same list of
candidates advised, their relatives seniority shall be
fixed according to the order in which their names are
arranged in the advice list:
526 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Provided that the seniority of candidates who have been
granted extension of time to join duty beyond three months
from the date of the appointment order, except those who
are undergoing courses of study or training which are
prescribed as essential qualification for the post to which
they are advised for appointment, shall be determined by
the date of their joining duty:…….”
20. From contextual perusal of Rule 27(a), the seniority of a person will
be determined from the date of the order of his first appointment to
such service, class, category or grade. Proviso to it deals with the
contingency where an employee asks for transfer mutually or inter-
unit or inter-departmental from one unit to another within the same
Department or from one Department to another as the case may
be. On such transfers, the seniority of the person who requested,
shall be determined from the date of joining and as per clause (a)
and (b) of the said proviso.
21. Thus, accompanying proviso only contemplates determination
of seniority when transfer as specified therein has been sought
mutually and on request. It is relevant to clarify that the language
of the proviso does not deal with the transfers of employees due
to administrative exigencies or their transfer by way of absorption
under the policy decision of the Government bifurcating the dual
control system of the staff.
22. So far as Rule 27(c) is concerned, it deals with the relative seniority
of the employees, by which the inter-se seniority of the employees
appointed to a class, category or grade shall be fixed according
to the order in which their names are arrayed in the first advice
list for his appointment to such class, category or grade. For clear
understanding, we can say the order of recommendations in the
selection list by Commission or Selection Board, at the time of their
selection, shall be relevant for maintaining the relative seniority as
specified in the final advice memo of the Commission or Board as
the case may be.

Findings recorded by learned Single Judge reversed by the
Division Bench
23. The absorbed employees succeeded before learned Single Judge.
The Court referring to Rule 8 of Appendix I of the G.O. dated
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 527

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

25.10.2008, held that seniority of the staff opted for joining DME will
be maintained as per Rules 27(a) and 27(c) of Part II, KS&SS Rules
and they will be entitled to get seniority including their past service
under the DHS in terms of the aforementioned rules. The relevant
findings are reproduced for ready reference as under –
"5. It was thereupon that WP(C) No. 12381/10 and
14091/10 were filed by persons, who were employees
of the DME. According to them, on exercising option
and coming over to DME, the optees should rank
junior most in seniority, and therefore, the clarification,
as contained in Ext. P5 referred to above is illegal.
Therefore, the only question that arises is whether
the optees of DHS who have come over to DME are
entitled to retain their seniority for their prior service
in DHS.
6. In my view, the issue can be answered with reference
to Clause 8 of Appendix I of Ext. P1 order dated
25/10/2008, which provides that seniority of staff
opted to Department of Medical Education will be
maintained as per Rule 27(a) and Rule 27(c) of Part II
KS&SSR. This precisely is what is reiterated in Ext. P5
and this order does not introduce anything which is
not provided in Ext. P1. Clause 8 of Appendix 1 of
Ext. P1 is also not under challenge in WP (C) Nos.
12381/10 or 14091/10. If that be so, necessarily,
optees like the petitioners in WP(C) No.4599/10
and the additional party respondents in WP(C) No.
14091/2010 are entitled to seniority for their prior
services under the DHS in terms of Rules 27(a)
and (c) of Part II KS&SSR.
xx xx xx xx
9. In view of the above, the challenge against Ext. P5
order referred to above dated 24.04.2010 raised in
WP(C) Nos. 12381/10 and 14091/2010 will stand
repelled. The claim of the petitioners in WP(C) No.
4599/10 for maintaining seniority for their service prior
to exercising option, is upheld, in view of Clause 8
of Appendix 1 of Ext. P1 Government Order dated
528 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

25/10/2008 and Ext. P5 dated 24.4.2010 referred
to above. The Directorate of Medical Education is
directed to finalise the inter se seniority list of the
optees and the existing employees of the Department
in accordance with law and as expeditiously as
possible.
24. Being aggrieved, the original employees filed Writ Appeal, which was
allowed and the Division Bench vide impugned judgment set aside
the order of the Single Bench. The findings as returned by Division
Bench are reproduced below for ready reference –
“The dual control system of hospital staff attached to
the Directorate of Medical Education and Directorate of
Health Services was abolished by Government Order
dated 25.10.2008 and clause 8 of Appendix I of thereto
is as follows:
“8. The seniority of the staff opted to Department
of Medical Education will be maintained as per
Rule 27(a) and Rule 27(c) of Part II, KS&SSR”.
2. Many employees in the Department of Health Services
opted for transfer to the Department of Medical Education
and necessarily therefore the proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part
II of KS&SSR extracted below applies:
“Provided that the seniority of persons of mutual
or inter unit or inter departmental transfer from
one unit to another within the same department
or from one department to another, as the case
may be, on request from such persons shall be
determined with reference to the dates of their
joining duty in the new unit or department”.
(emphasis supplied)
3. The seniority of those employees who have opted from
the Department of Health Services can only be determined
with reference to the dates of their joining duty in the
Department of Medical Education. The fact that they
have given their option for an inter-departmental transfer
indicates that it was on their request attracting the proviso
to Rule 27(a) of Part II of KS&SSR.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 529

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

4. The learned Single Judge has obviously overlooked the
rigour of the proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II of KS&SSR
which springs into action the moment there is an inter-
departmental transfer on request. We therefore direct that
the seniority of the optees aforesaid shall be determined
with reference to the proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II of
KS&SSR and the inter se seniority list finalised…..”
25. The Division Bench held that once an employee has furnished his/
her option, it should be termed as ‘inter-departmental’ transfer on
‘request’, hence, proviso to Rule 27(a) of Part II of KS&SS Rules will
be attracted. The said proviso contemplates that seniority of such
employees can be determined with reference to his/her date of joining
duty in DME, which was not duly considered by the learned Single
Judge. These findings of the Division Bench have been assailed
before us in these Appeals.

Rival Contentions
26. We may now refer the submissions of the parties. Learned Senior
Advocate Mr. V. Giri appearing on behalf of absorbed employees
submitted as follows –
26.1 In the present case, the State by a ‘policy decision’ abolished
the ‘dual control’ system of the ‘hospital staff’ between DHS
and DME. The administrative control was given to DME,
however, certain categories such as ‘Nursing, Paramedical and
Ministerial Staff’ were under the governance of DHS. To do away
with the anomaly, State by G.O. dated 25.10.2008 directed
that all ministerial staff, nurses, paramedical staff (including
last grade staff) working under DHS shall be brought under
the administrative control of the DME. The G.O. specifically
stipulated that seniority of the persons who opt for absorption
in DME will be maintained and their ‘lien’ will be shifted.
26.2 Pursuant thereto, out of 12044 posts, as many as 6022 posts
(50%) were ‘shifted’ to DME. DHS employees were given an
option either to retain their post with DHS or opt for DME on the
very same post which they occupied in DHS. After examination,
options of 3072 employees were found to be valid.
26.3 State vide G.O. dated 27.02.2009, directed that the Director
of Heath Service will issue orders transferring the ‘lien’ of
530 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

those 3072 employees at the disposal of DME. Further, it was
submitted that, essentially, it was never an ‘inter-departmental’
transfer of the employees on their ‘request’. They were given a
‘choice’ to exercise an ‘option’ by the State in furtherance of a
policy decision. Making such a choice would not fall within the
ambit of ‘request’ as stipulated in the proviso to Rule 27(a) of
KS&SS Rules and seniority of the absorbed employees cannot
be reckoned from the date, they joined DME.
26.4 The entire exercise was carried out by a committee set up by
the State after due consultation and by transferring lien to DME,
the service of the absorbed employees rendered in DHS was
specifically protected.
27. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Raghenth Basant appearing on behalf
of the original employees straight away drew our attention to the
proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules and contended that when any
inter-departmental transfer is made on the ‘request’ of an employee,
then in such case, his/her seniority must be reckoned from the date
of joining the new department. To further buttress, he submitted that –
27.1 Out of 6022 posts that stood transferred to DME from DHS,
only 3072 posts were filled by transferring absorbed employees
from DHS to DME. The remaining posts were filled on
deputation. Even though the inter-departmental transfer was an
administrative decision of the State, the Appendix II – ‘Form of
Option’ annexed with G.O. dated 25.10.2008 reveals that the
absorbed employees had to give a declaration as to ‘Stations
requested for posting’ before getting transferred.
27.2 Once it is settled that it is a case of inter-departmental transfer
subject to filling up of request for posting, proviso to Rule
27(a) of KS&SS Rules will automatically attract for determining
seniority of the transferred employees and as provided, it shall
be from the date of joining duty in the new Unit. Rule 27(c) has
no applicability in the lis at hand.
27.3 This Hon’ble Court in ‘K.P. Sudhakaran and Another Vs. State
of Kerala and Others1’ while dealing with issue of seniority and
applicability of Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules, has categorically

1 (2006) 5 SCC 386
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 531

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

held that on transfer, the employee has to forego his past service
and his seniority will be determined from the date of his joining
duty in the new department/unit.
27.4 Lastly, if the seniority of the original employees vis-à-vis absorbed
employees is reckoned from the date of initial appointment of
absorbed employees, then it will cause grave prejudice since
original employees were never given an option.
28. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jaideep Gupta appearing on behalf of
the State, argued in support of the appellants – absorbed employees
and at the outset submitted that there is no question of prejudice
being caused to original employees for the reason that, after the
abolition of dual control system, the original posts in DHS along
with their promotional posts in respective category were transferred
to DME. In other words, effectively additional posts as they existed
in DHS were shifted to DME. The options were exercised by the
absorbed employees only on the premise of assured seniority and
on absorption to DME, if they are placed at the bottom of seniority
list in the respective category, they will have to forego their previous
service. This was never the intention of the Government of Kerala
while taking the policy decision.
29. Generally, in inter-departmental transfers, only the employee is
transferred to the respective post, however, in the present case, the
post itself along with the employee have been shifted. DHS employees
were given an option to switch to DME after policy decision and
transfer of posts to DME. The said option was never in the nature
of request as contemplated under proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS
Rules. Hence, the said proviso has no bearing on the inter-se seniority
between the original employees and absorbed employees.

Analysis of contentions and reasonings
30. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, in our view
the short question which falls for consideration is ‘whether the
option exercised by DHS employees to join DME pursuant to a
policy decision of the State of Kerala ought to be considered as
an option for absorption or a request for transfer under proviso
to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules and in that situation, the inter-se
seniority of such employees in the DME shall be reckoned from
which date?’
532 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

31. Having perused the material placed, it is luculent that in furtherance
to the policy decision of the Government and on account of abolition
of the dual control system, employees of the DHS were required to
be transferred by way of absorption to DME in public interest looking
to the administrative exigency. In furtherance as per G.O. (Ms.)
No. 124/07/H&FWD dated 01.06.2007, existing staff of DHS were
required to be switched to DME for implementation of the said
decision. In this connection, the Government first decided to identify
the issues and invited the stakeholders to deliberate. A meeting
was convened under the Chairmanship of the Additional Secretary,
Health, on 10.10.2007 and taking note of the recommendations of
the Estimates Committees 1998-2000 and 2001-2004, it was decided
to abolish the dual control system to increase the efficiency of public
administration. In furtherance, the Committee framed the ‘Draft Rules
for Option’ and ‘Draft Option Form.’ As per the Government order
vide G.O. (Rt.) No. 1273/08/H&FWD dated 07.04.2008 and G.O. (Rt.)
No. 2321/08/H&FWD dated 05.07.2008, the Government nominated
nodal officers of the DHS and DME and the Administrative Officer
from the Kerala Heart Foundation to coordinate the activities in
connection with the implementation of abolition of dual control system.
They prepared the list of such staff of various categories and grade
working under their control and also the list of employees along with
the posts for transfer to the DME. On receiving the information, the
Government examined those in detail and was of the view that the
existing qualification and method of appointment for the posts in
DHS will be followed for appointment to the post after shifting them
to DME and modification, if any, shall be considered separately.
32. In consequence, the Government after partial modification in
G.O. (Ms.) No. 124/07/H&FWD dated 01.06.2007, issued the
G.O. (P) No. 548/2008/H&FWD dated 25.10.2008, and the
recommendations made therein are enumerated as under –
(i) All the ministerial staff, nurses, paramedical staff
including the last grade staff under the establishment
of Director Health Services and now working in the
Medical Education Department will be brought under
the administrative control of Director of Medical
Education subject to filing of option in accordance
with the Rules for option. The Rules of option is
given in Appendix-I and Form of option is given in
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 533

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

Appendix II. The category-wise list and number of
post as above is given in Appendix Ill. The persons
who opt for the Medical Education Department from
the Health Services Department will be allotted to
the Medical Education Department based on the
seniority in service. The option will be applicable
only for the staff of Health Services Department. The
staff of Health Services Department now working
under Director of Medical Education also will have
to file option if they wish to continue in the Medical
Education Service.
(ii) The staff of Health Services Department will file
option in the prescribed form in Appendix-II. If the
number of persons in a particular category who opt
to the Medical Education Department is in excess
of the sanctioned strength of that category in
Medical Education Service, the senior most among
such persons will be shifted to Medical Education
Service as per Rule 27(a) and 27(c) of Part II KS
& SSRs, subject to their option. If sufficient options
are not received for a particular post, the junior
most person will be shifted to the Medical Education
Department from the Health Services Department
making mandatory posting according to seniority. If
staff is in surplus in that category in Health Services
Department, such mandatory posting will continue till
such time Director of Health Services has no surplus
staff under any category.
(iii) The employees will file option in the prescribed
form in Appendix II duly recommended by the head
of office, to the Senior Administrative Officer (Dual
Control Option Cell), Office of the Director of Health
Services, Thiruvananthapuram. The employees shall
file option within a period of 45 days from the date
of this order.
(iv) The option form will be scrutinized by a Cell, with the
following staff, within a period of one month thereafter,
that is by 15.1.2009. The Cell will function in the office
of the Director of Health Services.
534 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(1) The Senior Administrative Officer, Health
Services Department, Thiruvananthapuram
(Convener).
(2) The Administrative Officer, Medical Education
Department, Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) T h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e r, K e r a l a
Heart Foundation, Medical College,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(4) The Administrative Assistant, Health Services
Department, Thiruvananthapuram.
(5) The Administrative Assistant, Medical Education
Department, Thiruvananthapuram.
(6) 2 Clerks each from the Medical Education
Department and Health Services Department,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(v) The Director of Health Services will issue orders transferring
the employees on the basis of options received, subject
to the Draft Rules in Appendix I, before 31.01.2009.
The Director of Health Services and Director of Medical
Education will identify the surplus staff thereafter, if any,
after completion of the process, to Government and Director
of Medical Education will identify the surplus staff in all
categories and report to Government after 31.1.2009.
By order of the Governor,
Dr. Vishwas Mehta,
Secretary (Health)”
33. From the above, it can clearly be spelt out that by the mechanism
carved out, the employees of the DHS were required to be transferred
along with the posts to DME by way of absorption in the exigency
of public administration and necessity. The factum of absorption
by way of transfer is clear from the declaration of Appendix II of
G.O. dated 25.10.2008, i.e., the form prescribing details of the
employees and attached declaration, by which it is clear that the
employees have opted for absorption in DME and wish to continue
and do not intend to return to DHS as referred in paragraph 15 of
the judgment.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 535

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

34. After receiving the declaration and Appendix II, the Committees of
the officials of DHS and DME made recommendations for transferring
3096 posts of 57 categories and accordingly, the Government of
Kerala issued G.O. (P) No. 167/2009/H&FWD dated 17.06.2009,
including the names and posts of those employees whose options
were found valid. After passing such order, the issue arose regarding
seniority of the employees absorbed in DME. In this regard, a
clarificatory letter was issued by the Government on 24.04.2010,
specifying that the seniority of the staff who opted for DME shall be
reckoned as per Rule 8 of Appendix I of G.O. dated 25.10.2008 in
terms of Rules 27(a) and 27(c) of Part II of KS&SS Rules. It was
clarified that in case of promotion the seniority shall be reckoned from
the date of promotion and in case of direct recruit (entry cadre) as per
the date of first effective advice issued at the time of appointment.
35. The reference of above Rule 8 of Appendix I is in paragraph 14
of the judgment whereby, the seniority of the staff who opted for
absorption to DME will be maintained as per Rule 27(a) and 27(c)
of Part II, KS&SS Rules. The word ‘maintained’ used for seniority
has its own significance and be further referred for inter-se seniority
of the absorbed employees in terms of the said Rules.
36. The Rule 27(a) as quoted in paragraph 19 of judgment above
emphasizes that seniority of a person in service in any class, category
or grade shall be determined from the date of order of first appointment
to the service unless he has been reduced to lower rank by way of
punishment. Its proviso only deals with the contingencies wherein
an employee seeks transfer on request as specified or applied
mutually. Therefore, the proviso applies only for the contingencies
of mutual or inter-unit or inter-departmental transfer from one unit
to another within the same department or from one department to
another as the case may be on request by such employee. It does
not apply to the cases in which transfer is made by the Government
in administrative exigency or the transfer by way of absorption under
policy decision of the Government.
37. In our view, the intent of Rules 27(a) and 27(c) is clear that seniority
be reckoned from the order of his first appointment and the inter-se
seniority be determined as per the date of first effective advice made
for his appointment in service, class, category or grade as the case
may be. The proviso of Rule 27(a) is merely an exception to the
536 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

said Rule of maintaining the seniority from the date of appointment
in the cases of ‘on request’ and mutual transfer. The said exception
does not attract in a case of transfer by way of absorption made by
the Government in public interest or in administrative exigencies.
Thus, proviso to Rule 27(a) is an exception to the transfer on
administrative grounds in public interest. The said fact is also clear
from the Rules framed in Appendix I, and Option Form of Appendix II
and its declaration as contained in G.O. dated 25.10.2008, by which
the employee has furnished option for absorption without making
any request for transfer.
38. The whole dispute revolves around the interpretation of the words
transfer on request, transfer applied mutually and transfer by way
of absorption. In the said context, it is necessary to lay emphasis
on the definition of transfer as given in Kerala Service Rules (KSR),
1959, which reads as under: -
“(36) ‘Transfer’ – means the movement of an officer
from one headquarter station in which he is employed to
another to such station, either,
(a) to take up the duties of a new post, or
(b) in consequence of a change of his headquarter.”
The said definition postulates the change of headquarter or station to
another either to take up the duties of a new post or in consequence
of change of headquarter. Indeed, the said change may be on request
as prescribed in proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules or on his/
her mutual request based on the needs of the employees who have
applied or for administrative reason in public interest. As discussed,
the said proviso only deals with first two contingencies and not the
last one, i.e., transfer in public interest for administrative reason.
39. The transfer of an employee is an incidence of service if it is in
public interest. It cannot be disputed that the Government is the
best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of an
employee. Simultaneously, if employee makes a request due to some
hardship and if the authority or the Government as the case may
be is satisfied, it may post such employee as per request, but such
transfer cannot be termed as transfer in public interest because it
is on the request of the employee and not in the exigencies of the
public administration.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 537

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

40. Here, it is a case of transfer by way of absorption. Now, to deal with
the meaning of absorption, we can profitably refer to the different
glossaries. As per P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 7th
Edition, ‘absorption’ means ‘to take in. On absorption, the employee
becomes part and parcel of the department absorbing him and
partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees
of the department.’
41. In Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), ‘absorb’ is defined as ‘to suck up;
to drink in, to imbibe; to draw in as a constituent part; and it has
been said to be also a synonym of “consume”.
42. On perusal of the above, it is clear that if transfer is by absorption,
then such employee becomes part and parcel of the department
absorbing him and partakes the same colour and character of the
existing employees. In other words, absorb clearly indicates to suck
up, to imbibe to draw as a constituent part and consume.
43. In addition, the words option and request have different meanings
which require further emphasis. In colloquial usage, Merriam-Webster
defines ‘option’ as – ‘an act of choosing; the power or right to choose:
freedom of choice; something that may be chosen’, whereas, ‘request’
is defined as – ‘by asking for something, usually in a formal way’.
44. In legal usage, Black’s Law Dictionary defines ‘option’ as – ‘right
or power to choose; something that may be chosen’. On the other
hand, it defines ‘request’ as – ‘an asking or petition; the expression
of a desire to some person for something to be granted or done’.
45. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 7 th Edition, ‘option’
is defined as – ‘simply choice or freedom of choice. The essential
requisites of an option or election is that a party opting should be
cognizant of his right. The party must have the knowledge of his or
her right and of those circumstances which will influence the exercise
of option. The person to whom an option is given in regard to any
matter must be left to his own free will to take or do one thing or
another.’ and ‘request’ is defined as ‘a demand or requirement’.
46. After going through the definitions, it is clear that option gives a right
to choose with freedom of choosing amongst the choices presented
to the person concerned, whereas a request is the desire of a person
to be granted something by asking or is a demand or requirement
of the employee.
538 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

47. In the present case, the transfer has been made by way of absorption
on the basis of option and not on the basis of request. The said
absorption was in furtherance to a policy decision of the Government
to abolish the dual control system enhancing the efficiency of the
administration of medical colleges and attached hospitals thereto
giving it to DME withdrawing from DHS. Therefore, the transfer by
way of absorption on exercise of option as specified in Appendix I
and Appendix II contained in G.O. dated 25.10.2008 does not attract
the proviso to Rule 27(a) of KS&SS Rules, which only deals with
the transfer on request or on mutual request. Thus, the action taken
in public interest due to administrative exigency even on option is
different than the action done on request. In our view, the proviso to
Rule 27(a) does not attract in case of a transfer by way of absorption
done by the Department in furtherance to the policy decision of the
Government. Therefore, transfer by way of absorption in public interest
cannot be equated with the transfer on request in contingencies as
specified in proviso to Rule 27(a) or applied mutually.
48. In the fact situation of the present case, the judgment of Full Bench
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Kartar Singh
v. State of Punjab, 1989 SCC OnLine P&H 482’, is relevant. The
Full Bench in a similar situation while dealing with the issue of
seniority of Patwaris working in the State’s Consolidation Department
who were absorbed into the Revenue Department held that the
employees of Consolidation Department after absorption into the
Revenue Department, will have the benefit of length of service in
the Consolidation Department, on the new post. While concurring
the view, in the separate note, Justice M.M. Punchhi, expressed his
view that absorption is akin to amalgamation, in the sense that, an
employee becomes part and parcel of the department absorbing him
and partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees
of the department, classified as promotees, direct appointees or
transferees. In the facts discussed in detail above, definition of
absorption which was based on option and the definition of request
discussed above, we concur with the view taken by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court by the said Full Bench.
49. At this stage, the judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel
Mr. Raghenth Basant representing private respondents in the case of
K.P. Sudhakaran and Anr. (supra) is also relevant to refer wherein
interpretation of Rule 27 of KS&SS Rules was expressly made in the
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 539

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

context of the transfers of employees on request and maintaining the
seniority. This Court dealt the proviso to Rule 27(a) in paragraph 11
and observed as thus:
“11. In service jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a
government servant holding a particular post is transferred
to the same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not
wipe out his length of service in the post till the date of
transfer and the period of service in the post before his
transfer has to be taken into consideration in computing the
seniority in the transferred post. But where a government
servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred
employee will have to forego his seniority till the date
of transfer, and will be placed at the bottom below the
junior most employee in the category in the new cadre
or department. This is because a government servant
getting transferred to another unit or department for his
personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the
seniority of the employees in the department to which he is
transferred, by claiming that his service in the department
from which he has been transferred, should be taken
into account. This is also because a person appointed
to a particular post in a cadre, should know the strength
of the cadre and prospects of promotion on the basis of
the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition
from outside would disturb such prospects. The matter is,
however, governed by the relevant service rules.”
In the case, Court dealing with clause (a) and (c) of Rule 27 of the
said Rules further observed as under –
“16. A careful reading of clause (c) shows that it did in no
way affect the contents of proviso to clause (a) of Rule 27
inserted by amendment by GO dated 13-1-1976. Clause (a)
of Rule 27 provided that seniority of a person in a service,
class, category or grade shall be determined by the date
of the order of his first appointment to such service, class,
category or grade. Clause (b) provides that the appointing
authority shall, at the time of passing an order appointing
two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix the
order of preference among them, and seniority shall be
540 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

determined in accordance with it. Clause (c) made it clear
that notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a)
and (b), where a person is appointed to a class, category
or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission, the
seniority of such person shall be determined by the date
of first effective advice made for his appointment to such
class, category or grade and when two or more persons
are included in the same list of candidates advised, their
relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in
which their names are arranged in the advice list. The
effect of clause (c) is to clarify the date with reference
to which seniority should be reckoned when they are
initially appointed on the advice of the PSC. It only means
that where the appointments are from the selection
list published by PSC, their seniority will be reckoned/
determined by the first effective advice made for such
appointment by PSC and not by the actual date of his
appointment by the appointing authority. Clause (c) has
therefore no effect or application over the proviso which
regulates subsequent “own-request” transfers.”
50. The Court with said observations concluded that if the request is made
for transfer by an employee and accepted by the authority, then on
joining the transferred post, seniority be counted from the date of his
joining at new place foregoing the previous service and advantage
of clause (c) of Rule 27 is not available to such employee. The said
judgment is of no help to private respondents – original employees
since the transfer in the present case is in the administrative
exigencies by way of absorption. As discussed above, the absorption
based on option is completely different than the transfer on request
and the said judgment rather fortifies the discussions made above
and favours the case of the absorbed employees.
51. In conclusion, we can observe that in furtherance to the conscious
policy decision of the Government, abolition of dual control system
was inevitable, therefore, bifurcation of DHS and DME was directed
based on the recommendations. The employees existing in DHS were
absorbed in DME along with posts and lien. In the present case,
in terms of the G.O. (P) No. 548/2008/H&FWD dated 25.10.2008,
particularly Rule 8 of Appendix I, seniority of the absorbed employee
cannot be disturbed applying the proviso of Rule 27(a) of KS&SS
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 541

Geetha V.M. & Ors. v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

Rules. Learned Senior counsel representing the State has supported
the said view pointing out that while forming the policy for transfer
by way of Appendix I, II and III, the Government never intended
to forgo the seniority of the employees in any class, category and
grade existing in service of DHS and absorbed in DME. Therefore,
the Government has specifically mentioned in Rule 8 of Appendix I
that the seniority of such employee shall be ‘maintained’ as per
Rule 27(a) and 27(c) of Part II of KS&SS Rules giving due weightage
to the service rendered by them in DHS while absorbing in DME.
52. In totality of facts as discussed, the inescapable conclusion that can
be drawn is that the transfer of appellants – absorbed employees was
by way of absorption as per the policy decision of the Government of
Kerala and it would not fall within the purview of proviso to Rule 27(a)
of KS&SS Rules. The appellants exercised the option for absorption
by transfer from DHS to DME in line with the policy decision taken
by Government of Kerala and not on their own volition. Such being
the situation, it cannot be considered as a case of transfer based on
voluntary choice or own request. Their seniority and inter-se seniority
shall be maintained as per Rule 27(a) and 27(c) of Part II of KS&SS
Rules read with clarificatory letter dated 24.04.2010 with reference
to Rule 8 of Appendix I to G.O. dated 25.10.2008. The question as
framed by us in paragraph 30 is answered accordingly.
53. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the findings recorded by the Division Bench reversing
the judgment of learned Single Judge are without due consideration
of the material placed and based on wrong interpretation of rules.
Therefore, such findings and the judgment stand set-aside.
54. Resultantly, the present appeals are allowed. The State of Kerala
is directed to draw the seniority list of DME employees, including
original and absorbed employees, reckoning the seniority of the
absorbed employees as directed in paragraph 52 above. Pending
interlocutory applications (if any) stand disposed-of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey