SAJITHABAI AND ORS.versusTHE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY AND ORS.

                 [2025] 3 S.C.R. 789 : 2025 INSC 354

                        Sajithabai and Ors.
                                v.
                The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 1420-1422 of 2025)
                                18 March 2025
               [Dipankar Datta and Manmohan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the issue as to a person joining as an Assistant
       Engineer, has option to migrate to either the degree or diploma
       quota; and the scope of the Kerala Public Health Engineering
       Service Special Rules, 1960 and the Kerala Public Health
       Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966.

                                  Headnotes†
       Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules,
       1960 – r.4(b) – Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate
       Service Rules, 1966 – Promotion – Option to migrate to
       either the degree or diploma quota – Appellants inducted as
       Draftsman, promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on
       basis of seniority in the Diploma quota under the 1966 Rules
       prior to the declaration of direct recruitment result in which
       they also participated – Meanwhile, the respondents directly
       recruited to the post of Assistant Engineer in the 6% degree
       quota – Appellant at the stage of entering the service never
       had the opportunity to opt or choose for the diploma or degree
       quota – In the seniority list, appellants shown to be senior to
       the respondents – Appellants then sought promotion to the
       post of Assistant Executive Engineer – Writ petition by the
       respondents – Single Judge allowed the same holding that
       directly recruited Assistant Engineers from the open market
       and those promoted through the Departmental Quota are
       considered under separate watertight categories; and that the
       appellants chose promotion under the Diploma quota and are
       thus ineligible for further promotion to Assistant Executive
       Engineer under the Degree quota, as per the governing rules –
       Division Bench upheld the same – Correctness:


* Author
790                                                               [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Held: 1966 Rules and 1960 Rules are separate and distinct rules
       that govern two separate services comprising different categories of
       officers – Once a person joins as an Assistant Engineer, the feeder
       post under a separate service governed by 1960 Rules, then that
       person irrespective of how he/she has been appointed to that post,
       has the option to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota,
       provided he/she has obtained a degree or a diploma – Intent and
       purpose behind r.4(b) is to give an option to an Assistant Engineer
       to join either the diploma or the degree quota, as promotion to the
       next higher post – Special Rules, 1960 deal with a separate service,
       its r.4(b) has no applicability to a stage prior to an officer becoming
       an Assistant Engineer – Interpretation by the respondents that
       r.4(b) and its proviso give an option/choice to choose a diploma or
       degree stream to only those who while holding the post of Assistant
       Engineer acquire a degree qualification is erroneous – Proviso
       which gives the option to such officers to choose the diploma
       or degree quota means and refers to all the officers holding the
       post of Assistant Engineer – Impugned judgments passed by the
       Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court set aside.
       [Paras 16-26, 32]

                                 Case Law Cited
       Chandravathi P.K. and Others. v. C.K. Saji and Others [2004] 2
       SCR 330 : (2004) 3 SCC 734 – held inapplicable.
       K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another
       [1982] 1 SCR 629 : (1981) 4 SCC 173; Bishwajit Dey v. The
       State of Assam [2025] 1 SCR 281 : Criminal Appeal No. 87 of
       2025 – referred to.
       Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) EWCA Civ. 223 – referred to.

                                   List of Acts
       Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960;
       Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service Rules, 1966.

                                List of Keywords
       Assistant Engineer; Promotion; Draftsman; Diploma; Degree;
       Seniority; Educational requirement; Promotion quota; Option
       to migrate to either the degree or diploma quota; Seniority list;
       Departmental Quota; Promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer;
       Feeder post.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         791

       Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.


                           Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 1420-1422
     of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2024 of the High Court
     of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos. 2213 and 2206 of 2023 and
     WA No. 66 of 2024

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Arvinda Babu, Ms. Siddhi Gupta, Ms. Anne
     Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M J, Aditya Roy, P. S. Sudheer.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     V. Chitembresh, Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Advs., Roy Abraham, Ms.
     Reena Roy, Adithya Koshy Roy, Yaduinder Lal, Ms. Rajni Ohri Lal,
     Himinder Lal, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar,
     Santhosh K, Pradeep Sehrawat.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Manmohan, J.

1.   Present Appeals have been filed challenging the common impugned
     judgment and final order dated 18th March, 2024 passed by the High
     Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 2213 of 2023, W.A. No.
     2206 of 2023 and W.A. No. 66 of 2024, whereby the Division Bench
     of the High Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the Appellants
     herein and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned
     Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the private Respondents
     [original writ petitioners in WP(C) 5277/2023].

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
2.   Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel for the Appellants stated that
     the present appeals have been filed on behalf of six employees of
     the Kerala Water Authority who were inducted as Draftsmen-Grade-I.
     He pointed out that four of these Appellants had joined on various
     dates in the year 2005, while one had joined in the year 2001 and
     the sixth Appellant had joined on 13th February, 2014. He stated that
792                                                         [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       the present set of Appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant
       Engineers on various dates between 2015-16, except the sixth
       Appellant, who was promoted on 22nd September, 2018.
3.     He stated that the two private Respondents – Mr. Anoop VS had
       joined service directly as an Assistant Engineer on 08th May, 2017,
       while Ms. Bindu S had joined service on 02nd March, 2005 as an
       Assistant Engineer, but availed leave without pay during her probation
       period and rejoined only on 18th October, 2015.
4.     He stated that the present dispute arises out of the seniority lists
       dated 20th April, 2022 and 14th February, 2023 whereby the Appellants
       were shown to be senior to the Respondents.
5.     He stated that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition
       no. 5277/2023 filed by Mr. Anoop VS and Ms. Bindu S (the private
       Respondents) relying on an erroneous interpretation of the Kerala
       Public Health Engineering Service Special Rules, 1960 (hereinafter
       the ‘Special Rules, 1960’) which, according to the Appellants, do
       not apply up to the stage of promotion or appointment to the post
       of Assistant Engineer. He submitted that appointment to the post of
       Assistant Engineer is solely governed by a separate set of Rules
       called the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service
       Rules, 1966 (hereinafter the ‘Subordinate Service Rules, 1966’).
       He submitted that the Special Rules, 1960 require employees to
       exercise an option, i.e. for their further promotions, whether they
       want to be included in the ‘degree quota’ or the ‘diploma quota’.
       According to him, the fundamental error in the impugned order was
       that this requirement was read into the Subordinate Service Rules,
       1966 as well, despite a similar provision not being present in the
       1966 Rules. He contended that employment in Kerala Water Authority
       is governed by two different sets of Rules.
6.     He further stated that in accordance with the Subordinate Service
       Rules, 1966, an Assistant Engineer could either be appointed
       through direct recruitment or promoted from the post of a Draftsman
       in a 60:40 ratio. According to him, out of the 60% (sixty per cent)
       quota for direct recruitment, 6% (six per cent) had been carved out
       for in-service Draftsmen with an engineering degree. Further, the
       educational requirement for 40% (forty per cent) promotion quota
       was set out in the Schedule, according to which an employee
       must possess a diploma. Pertinently, for a Draftsman holding an
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                           793

       Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.


     engineering degree, there was no requirement of giving an option
     as to the category in which the appointment as Assistant Engineer
     was sought – the 6% (six per cent) in-service direct recruitment or
     the 40% (forty per cent) promotion.
7.   He stated that insofar as the Appellants were concerned, it was not
     in dispute that they all had obtained an engineering degree much
     prior to their promotion as an Assistant Engineer. However, the
     Appellants had also applied for direct recruitment in the 6% (six per
     cent) in-service quota and despite being included in its Select List,
     the Appellants had declined their appointments as they had already
     been appointed in the 40% (forty per cent) promotional category
     before the declaration of results of the recruitment exam in the 6%
     (six per cent) quota.
8.   Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel stated that the Appellants
     having been promoted were governed for their future promotions to
     the post of Assistant Executive Engineer by the Special Rules, 1960.
     He emphasised that what applied to the Appellants or any other
     candidate seeking promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer was
     Rule 4(b) of the Special Rules, 1960. Since he laid special emphasis
     on Rule 4(b) and its proviso, the same are reproduced hereinbelow: -
           “4……
           (b) [Vacancies in the category of Assistant Engineers shall
           be filled up from among those in categories 1 or 2 in the
           Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service in
           the ratio of 4:1 between—]
                (1)   Persons possessing any of the qualifications
                      mentioned in item (i) or in Section A in item (ii)
                      of the Annexure, and
                (2)   Those possessing any of the qualifications
                      mentioned in Section B in item (ii) of the
                      Annexure or those possessing the S.M.T.
                      Overseers certificate, every 5th vacancy being
                      allotted to the latter and the rest to the former.
           A person who while holding [any of the posts in categories 1
           and 2 of the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate
           Service] passes Sections A and B of the A.M.I.E. (India)
           Examination shall be eligible for promotion as Assistant
794                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            Engineer against the quota allotted for those possessing
            the qualifications mentioned in item (i) or Section A in item
            (ii) of the Annexure only after the claims of all those who,
            on the date of his passing the A.M.I.E. (India) Examination,
            possessed the qualifications mentioned in item (i) of the
            Annexure have been considered:
            Provided that it will be left to the option of such persons
            to continue among [those] possessing the qualifications
            mentioned in Section B in item (ii) of the Annexure and
            claim promotion against the quota allotted to them.”
9.     He submitted that the aforesaid proviso would apply only once the
       Appellants were seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Executive
       Engineer. He stated that the method by which the Appellants became
       Assistant Engineer was not covered by this proviso. He pointed out
       that it was on this basis that the seniority list had been correctly
       drawn up by the Respondent authority.
10. He submitted that the learned Single Judge while deciding the
    challenge to the seniority list had held that there was a requirement
    of giving an option between the Direct Recruitment Quota (degree
    quota) and the Promotion Quota (diploma quota) even for the purpose
    of Subordinate Service Rules, 1966. According to him, this was
    the solitary finding based on which the writ petition of the private
    Respondents had been allowed.
11. He submitted that the learned Division Bench in the impugned order
    had added one more reason while upholding the judgment of the
    learned Single Judge, i.e. the Special Rules, 1960 did not permit
    switching by a person who had obtained appointment as an Assistant
    Engineer under the diploma quota to that of degree quota.

       ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
12. Per contra, Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned senior counsel for the
    private respondents stated that the Appellants herein declined
    the offer of appointment in the 6% (six per cent) degree qualified
    draftsmen earmarked for in service candidates though they were
    included in the ranked list. He emphasised that the Appellants chose
    to get promoted from the category of Draftsmen as diploma holders
    (promotion quota). He submitted that the Appellants who were
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          795

       Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.


     appointed in the diploma quota could not thereafter switch over to
     the degree quota for further promotion.
13. He also contended that Rule 4(b) and its proviso of the Special
    Rules, 1960 applies to only those who, while holding the post of
    Assistant Engineer acquire a degree qualification. He stated that
    as the Appellants had acquired the degree qualification even before
    being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and had declined
    promotion in the degree quota, they were not entitled to the benefit of
    Rule 4(b) and its proviso of the Special Rules, 1960. He contended
    that once a diploma-cum-degree holder opted for diploma quota, he
    cannot switch over to degree quota and thereafter revert to diploma
    quota depending on promotional avenues. He submitted that ‘once
    a mortgage, always a mortgage’. In support of his submission, he
    also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandravathi
    P.K. and Others. vs. C.K. Saji and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 734,
    wherein it has been held as under:-
           “43. The State as an employer is entitled to fix separate
           quota of promotion for the degree-holders, diploma-holders
           and certificate-holders separately in exercise of its rule-
           making power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
           Such a rule is not unconstitutional. The State therefore,
           in our opinion, cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily by
           giving an option to such diploma-holders, who acquired
           a higher qualification, so as to enable them to either opt
           for promotion in the category of degree-holder or diploma-
           holder. Such option was to be exercised by the officer
           concerned only. He, in a given situation, may feel that he
           would be promoted in the diploma-holders’ quota earlier
           than degree-holders’ quota and vice versa but once he
           opts to join the stream of the degree-holders, he would
           be placed at the bottom of the seniority list.”

     ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1-KERALA
     WATER AUTHORITY
14. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1/Kerala Water Authority
    contended that the interpretation given to Rule 4(b) of the Special
    Rules, 1960 by the Courts below was erroneous. He submitted that
    Rule 4(b) cannot be interpreted to mean that individuals who obtained
796                                                          [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       a degree after being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer
       are alone entitled to migrate to the degree quota. He clarified that
       Rule 4(b) even allows individuals who had obtained the degree
       qualification before being promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer
       to migrate to the degree quota. In support of his submission, he
       relied on the counter affidavit filed by the Kerala Water Authority
       before the learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the same
       is reproduced hereinbelow:-
            "18. …….Thus Ext.R1(g) Rule [Rule 4(b) of Special Rules,
                 1960] provide a specific right for respondents 4 to 10
                 to change over their quota from diploma to graduate,
                 if they had occurred degree qualification subject
                 to the condition cited above. That is only after the
                 claims of all those who on the date of his passing
                 the examination, possess a degree qualification
                 have been considered. The diploma engineers
                 cannot march over the degree engineers, the date
                 of acquisition of degree is a crucial date.
            19. It is submitted that the facts and circumstances
                involved in Ext.P11 is factually different. In the said
                case, the petitioner therein was Assistant Executive
                Engineer, who opted to get his promotion under
                diploma quota and claiming further promotion as
                Executive Engineer under degree quota, which was
                challenged before the Hon’ble Court. In paragraph 2
                of Ext.P11. The State as an employer is entitled to fix
                separate quota of promotion for the degree holder,
                diploma holders and certificate holders separately, in
                exercise of its rule making power under Article 309
                of the Constitution of India.
            20. The employer cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily
                by giving an option to such diploma holders, who
                acquired a higher qualification, so as to enable them
                to either opt for promotion in the category of degree
                holder or diploma holder. Such options are to be
                exercised by the employee concerned.
            Therefore, in the light of aforesaid submissions, it is clear
            that the instant Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner does
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                          797

       Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.


           not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article
           226 of the Constitution of India…..”

     REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS
15. Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned senior counsel in his rejoinder submitted
    that the question considered by this Court in Chandravathi P.K.
    (supra), as reflected in paragraph 20 of the said judgment, has
    no relation to the issue at hand. He stated that while deciding that
    question, certain observations were made in paragraph 43 of the
    said judgment which related to the validity of Subordinate Service
    Rules, 1966 and in no manner could be read to mean that a proviso
    similar to the one which existed along with Rule 4(b) of the Special
    Rules, 1960 would automatically be imported into the Subordinate
    Service Rules, 1966.

                               REASONING

     SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1966 AND THE SPECIAL RULES,
     1960 ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT RULES THAT GOVERN TWO
     SEPARATE SERVICES
16. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties and having
    perused the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that
    the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and the Special Rules, 1960
    are separate and distinct rules that govern two separate services
    comprising different categories of officers.
17. The Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 govern the appointment,
    promotion and other conditions of service for various posts starting
    from Lorry Driver to Junior Engineer (re-designated as Assistant
    Engineer with effect from 05th December, 1978).
18. The Special Rules, 1960 govern the appointments and promotions
    of four categories of posts, i.e. Assistant Executive Engineer (called
    Assistant Engineer before 05th December, 1978), Executive Engineer,
    Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer.
19. Under the Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, appointment to the post
    of Assistant Engineer is by two streams i.e. direct recruitment quota
    (60%) (sixty per cent) and promotion quota (40%) (forty per cent).
20. In the 60% (sixty per cent) direct recruitment quota, 54% (fifty-four per
    cent) recruitment is on the basis of merit in an open exam (i.e. open
798                                                        [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       market) in which candidates possessing a degree can participate.
       The balance 6% (six per cent) direct recruitment is on the basis of
       merit in an open exam in which a degree qualified Draftsman can
       participate.
21. The 40% (forty per cent) promotion quota is filled up from Draftsman/
    overseer on the basis of seniority, irrespective of the fact that they
    hold a diploma only or both diploma and degree qualification.
22. The Appellants before this Court who were holding the post of
    Draftsman/Overseer were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer
    (i.e. from Category no. IV to Category no. I) in 2015 on the basis
    of seniority as draftsman in diploma quota under the Subordinate
    Service Rules, 1966 i.e. prior to the declaration of result on 21st
    March, 2017 of the 6% (six per cent) direct recruitment exam in
    which they had also participated.
23. Consequently, the Appellants, at the stage of entering the Kerala
    Public Health Engineering Service, never had the opportunity to opt
    or choose for the diploma or degree quota. However, the two private
    Respondents were appointed to the post of Assistant Engineers as
    they were successful in the direct recruitment exam in the degree
    quota.

       RULE 4(B) OF SPECIAL RULES, 1960 HAS NO APPLICABILITY
       TO A STAGE PRIOR TO AN OFFICER BECOMING AN ASSISTANT
       ENGINEER
24. This Court is further of the view that as Special Rules, 1960 deal with
    a separate service, its Rule 4(b) has no applicability to a stage prior
    to an officer becoming an Assistant Engineer i.e. to the draftsman/
    overseer who are holding both degree and diploma qualification and
    who exercise the option of sitting in 6% (six per cent) competitive exam
    for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. To put it differently,
    the said Rule 4(b) has no relevance as to how the person was
    appointed to the feeder post (i.e. the post of Assistant Engineer) in
    the service governed by the Special Rules, 1960. Consequently, this
    Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has erroneously
    held that “directly recruited Assistant Engineers from the open market
    and those promoted through the Departmental Quota are considered
    under separate watertight categories. This distinction necessitates
    maintaining separate seniority lists for each category, with different
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                        799

       Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.


     promotional paths…….they chose promotion under the Diploma quota
     and are thus ineligible for further promotion to Assistant Executive
     Engineer under the Degree quota, as per the governing rules.”

     ONCE A PERSON JOINS AS AN ASSISTANT ENGINEER, HE/SHE
     HAS THE OPTION TO MIGRATE TO EITHER THE DEGREE OR
     DIPLOMA QUOTA
25. This Court is also of the view that once a person joins as an Assistant
    Engineer, i.e. the feeder post under a separate service governed by
    Special Rules, 1960, then that person irrespective of how he/she has
    been appointed to that post, has the option to migrate to either the
    degree or diploma quota, provided he/she has obtained a degree
    or a diploma. The intent and purpose behind Rule 4(b) is to give
    an option to an Assistant Engineer to join either the diploma or the
    degree quota, as promotion to the next higher post (i.e. Assistant
    Executive Engineer) is in the ratio of 4:1 between persons possessing
    any of the qualifications mentioned in item (i) or in Section A in item
    (ii) of the Annexure (degree quota) and those possessing any of the
    qualifications mentioned in Section B in item (ii) of the Annexure or
    those possessing the SM.T. Overseers certificate (diploma quota)
    whereby every 5th (fifth) vacancy is allotted to the latter and the rest
    to the former.

     I N T E R P R E TAT I O N P U T F O RWA R D B Y T H E P R I VAT E
     RESPONDENTS IS ERRONEOUS
26. This Court is of the opinion that the interpretation put forward by the
    private Respondents that Rule 4(b) and its proviso of the Special
    Rules give an option/choice to choose a diploma or degree stream to
    only those who while holding the post of Assistant Engineer acquire
    a degree qualification is erroneous. Proviso to Rule 4(b) is not just a
    proviso to the paragraph preceding it but to the entire Rule 4(b). The
    first para of Rule 4(b) when it stipulates that vacancy in the category
    of Assistant Engineers (to be read as Assistant Executive Engineer)
    shall be filled up from among those in Categories 1 and 2 in the
    Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 in the ratio of 4:1, takes within its
    fold all the officers serving as Assistant Engineer. Consequently, the
    proviso which gives the option to such officers to choose the diploma
    or degree quota means and refers to all the officers holding the post
    of Assistant Engineer. The paragraph preceding the proviso clarifies
800                                                            [2025] 3 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       that the option to choose the stream shall be available to even those
       Assistant Engineers who acquire the degree during their tenure as
       Assistant Engineers. The proviso further clarifies as to how seniority
       of such Assistant Engineers would be determined.
27. This Court is also of the view that if the interpretation put forward
    by the Division Bench and the private Respondents is accepted,
    then it would put the meritorious candidates in a disadvantageous
    position as would be apparent from the illustration where ‘X’ being
    a draftsman/overseer and holding both diploma and degree gets
    promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the promotion quota,
    while another person ‘Y’ being junior to ‘X’ and having only a diploma
    gets promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the promotion
    quota subsequently and while holding the said post obtains a degree
    and thereafter exercises his option to join the degree quota, will get
    an accelerated promotion and become ‘X’s’ senior.
28. It is trite law that the more absurd a suggested conclusion of
    construction is, the more the court will lean against that conclusion.
    That is ordinarily so whether one is construing a contract or a statute.
    [See: Hatzl v. XL Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) EWCA Civ. 223].
29. This Court in K.P. Varghese vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam
    and Another, (1981) 4 SCC 173 has held as under: -
            “6. …..It is now a well-settled rule of construction that
            where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision
            produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which
            could never have been intended by the legislature, the
            court may modify the language used by the legislature
            or even “do some violence” to it, so as to achieve the
            obvious intention of the legislature and produce a rational
            construction (vide Luke v. Inland Revenue Commissioner
            [(1963) AC 557] )…..”
30. Further, this Court in Bishwajit Dey vs. The State of Assam,
    Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2025 has recently held as under:-
            ‘The presumption against absurdity is found in the brief
            observation of Lord Saville agreeing with his colleagues in
            the case of Noone [R (on the application of Noone) v.
            Governor of HMP Drake Hall [2010] UKSC 30]. Lord
            Saville says simply:
[2025] 3 S.C.R.                                                         801

         Sajithabai and Ors. v. The Kerala Water Authority and Ors.


                   “I would allow this appeal. For the reasons given
                   by Lord Phillips and Lord Mance, I have no
                   doubt that by one route or another the legislation
                   must be construed so as to avoid what would
                   otherwise produce irrational and indefensible
                   results that Parliament could not have intended.”

     THE JUDGMENT IN CHANDRAVATHI P.K. (SUPRA) HAS NO
     APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESENT CASE
31. This Court is the view that the judgment in Chandravathi P.K. (supra)
    has no applicability to the facts of the present case inasmuch as
    the issue in the said case as articulated in paragraph 20, ‘whether
    in terms of the scheme of the Kerala Engineering Service (General
    Branch) Rules, diploma-holders are entitled to claim any weightage
    for the service rendered by them prior to their acquisition of degree
    qualification in the matter of promotion or transfer to higher posts’, is
    entirely different. Further, it is an admitted position (as per para 7 of
    the private Respondent’s own counter affidavit) that the Chandravathi
    P.K. (supra) judgment is inapplicable to the present case.

                                  CONCLUSION
32. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed and consequently,
    the impugned judgments passed by the learned Single Judge and
    the Division Bench are set aside. Pending applications, if any, also
    stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain