A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Secretary to Government Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki concerns fixation of seniority when a government employee is moved from one cadre to another by reason of medical incapacity at the employee’s request and after invocation of Rule 16(a)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.

The respondent, originally appointed as Staff Nurse in 1979, sought a cadre change to First Division Assistant on medical grounds; a medical board confirmed bronchitis and the State placed her in the clerical cadre subject to her written consent “to take seniority below the last person”.

Final cadre-change orders were issued in 1989. When a seniority list published in 2007 placed her seniority from 1989, the respondent challenged, asking that her seniority in the new cadre be reckoned from her original appointment in 1979. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal and Karnataka High Court accepted the respondent’s claim relying on an earlier High Court precedent but the Supreme Court reversed.

The Court analysed the exceptionality and operation of Rule 16 and the express provisos of Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, distinguished transfers “in public interest” from transfers “at the request of the officer”, and held that where transfers occur at the officer’s request (even for medical reasons) and on the officer’s consent to forego seniority, the transferee must be slotted below incumbents in the new cadre.

The High Court’s equating of a cadre change following a medical-board report with a transfer in the public interest was held unsound. Consequently, the State’s final seniority list (seniority from 19.04.1989) was upheld.

Keywords: seniority; transfer on medical grounds; Rule 16(a)(iii) 1977 Rules; Rule 6 1957 Rules; change of cadre.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from the intersection of two rule-sets: the exceptional power under Rule 16 (to relax recruitment/appointment qualifications and permit appointment to a different post where a servant is permanently incapacitated by bodily infirmity) and the seniority-fixation scheme under Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules.

The respondent, a Staff Nurse since 1979, applied in the 1980s for cadre change to a clerical post on medical grounds; a medical board confirmed bronchitis and the government placed her temporarily and later finally as a First Division Assistant by invoking Rule 16(a)(iii), subject to conditions including a two-year departmental examination requirement and the express condition that she would “take seniority below the last person” in that cadre.

For nearly two decades she worked in the new cadre without contest. When the State prepared a final seniority list in 2007 and fixed her seniority from the 1989 cadre change, she petitioned the Tribunal asserting that her seniority ought to date back to her original 1979 appointment as Staff Nurse.

The Tribunal and High Court allowed her claim, relying on line(s) of authority treating cadre change following medical disability as akin to transfer in public interest. The State appealed.

The Supreme Court was required to decide whether transfers/reappointments made at the officer’s request (even motivated by medical incapacity) attract the protective rule that preserves earlier seniority (as in transfers in public interest), or whether the controlling proviso placing such transferees below all officers in the new grade governs.

The Court examined text, antecedent jurisprudence, and policy rationales for seniority protection to decide the proper legal consequence of a consented cadre change effected under Rule 16(a)(iii).

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent was appointed Staff Nurse on 05.01.1979. She sought cadre-change to First Division Assistant on medical grounds. The Director referenced a medical board which, on 22.04.1985, reported that she suffered bronchitis and could not perform Staff Nurse duties.

The government accepted the request but directed a temporary three-month posting in 1986 to test performance; she continued in that post and, by letter of 03.06.1985, she consented “to take seniority below the last person” in the changed cadre.

The government issued a final cadre-change order dated 19.04.1989 under Rule 16(a)(iii) 1977 Rules, setting conditions:

(i) pass departmental exam within two years;

(ii) seniority to be below the last candidate in the cadre on that date;

(iii) no travel allowance;

(iv) no further cadre change during service.

She served as First Division Assistant from 1989 onwards. When the State released a final seniority list dated 01.10.2007 that treated her seniority in the new cadre from 19.04.1989, she challenged before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal claiming seniority from 05.01.1979.

The Tribunal allowed her application relying on a Karnataka High Court precedent which treated cadre change post-medical report as public-interest transfer. The State’s writ against the Tribunal order was dismissed by the High Court, prompting the present appeal. The administrative record therefore contains an express undertaking by the respondent to accept junior-most placement and a formal Rule 16 invocation.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a cadre change effected under Rule 16(a)(iii) on the employee’s request and with the employee’s consent to forego seniority should be equated to a transfer in public interest for seniority fixation purposes?
ii. Whether an officer who is permanently incapacitated and reappointed to a different post retains the seniority of the original appointment or must be placed below incumbents of the new cadre if the transfer was at the officer’s request?
iii. Whether the Tribunal and High Court correctly interpreted and applied Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules in granting seniority from original date of appointment?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State contended that the cadre change occurred at the respondent’s request, was carried out under Rule 16(a)(iii), and that the government record contains the respondent’s written consent to occupy the junior-most position in the new cadre.
ii. The appellants argued that Rule 16 is an exception and must be read with its provisos; once invoked, it permits deviation from normal recruitment norms but does not wipe out the effect of Rule 6 which treats requests for transfer as attracting junior-most placement.
iii. The State urged that acceptance of benefits of the new post along with the undertaking disentitles the respondent from retrospective seniority and that administrative stability and protection of incumbents’ legitimate expectations justify placing the transferee below all existing officers.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Counsel for the respondent argued that the cadre change followed a medical-board report and therefore should be treated as compelled by public interest to ensure the officer’s health and continued service; hence her earlier service as Staff Nurse must count for seniority in the new cadre.
ii. The respondent pointed to precedents (including a Karnataka High Court decision) to support the proposition that change effected after medical incapacity may be categorised as in the public interest and thus not require relegation to the bottom of the seniority list.
iii. It was further submitted that penalising a medically vulnerable officer by juniorising her seniority contradicts fairness and the protective purpose of service law.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Rule 16(a)(iii), Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 — permits appointment where an officer is permanently incapacitated for the post held; provisos restrict appointment to posts not lower than that held save with consent.
ii. Rule 6, Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 — distinguishes transfers in public interest (seniority preserved) and transfers at the officer’s request (transferee to be placed below all officers borne on that grade on or before the date of transfer).
iii. Principle of status in service jurisprudence (as articulated in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar): service relations are rule-governed and rights flow from rules of service.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court analysed the text of Rule 16 and Rule 6 and emphasised that Rule 16 is an exception a statutory power to relax rules must show recorded reasons and cannot be used to circumvent other textual prescriptions unless the record manifests the rationale. Rule 16(a)(iii) contemplates appointment of an officer permanently incapacitated for his post; its provisos preserve the post-level unless the officer consents to a lower post.

The Court read these provisions together with Rule 6 (1957) which expressly treats transfers in public interest differently from transfers at the officer’s request. The Court held that the purpose, criteria and consequences of the two categories of transfers are materially distinct: transfers in public interest are driven by administrative exigencies and carry the employee’s existing status including seniority, whereas transfers at the officer’s request accommodate personal needs but must preserve incumbents’ expectations and thus generally place the transferee below the existing cadre.

The Court reproached the High Court’s reliance on K. Seetharamulu, finding that the earlier decision had not correctly analysed the governing Rule and had made an overbroad statement that cadre changes following medical-board reports necessarily amount to public-interest transfers. Applying the law to the facts, the Court noted the respondent had expressly agreed by letter on 03.06.1985 to “take seniority below the last person” and the final order of 19.04.1989 recorded the condition.

Consequently, when the State’s final seniority list in 2007 placed her seniority from 1989, that action conformed to Rule 16 and Rule 6. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court order and restored the State’s position that seniority for the respondent in the First Division Assistant cadre is to be reckoned from 19.04.1989. The Court also referred approvingly to M K Jagadeesh where identical factual undertakings had been sustained. The appeal was allowed; no costs were awarded.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The decisive legal principle is that where a cadre change is effected at the request of the officer under Rule 16(a)(iii) and the officer gives express consent to occupy a lower place in the new cadre, the transferee’s seniority must be fixed in accordance with Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules i.e., placed below all officers borne on the new grade on or before the date of transfer.

Transfers following medical-board reports do not ipso facto become transfers in public interest; the characterisation depends on origin, objective and the rule-invoked. Thus, an officer’s acceptance of the relaxed appointment on terms that foreclose retrospective seniority is determinative. The Court therefore reversed orders that extended seniority retrospectively to the original appointment date.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed, by way of broader guidance, that Rule 16 is exceptional and must be invoked with reasons recorded in the administrative file; the protective provisos in Rule 16 (preserving the post level unless consented otherwise) are subject to strict construction.

The Court signalled that administrative compassion (accommodating medical incapacity) must nonetheless respect statutory schemes that protect incumbents’ expectations regarding seniority and promotion prospects.

The judgment also cautioningly criticised precedents that derive broad propositions from specific facts without textual analysis. The Court underscored that fairness to the individual and fairness to the cadre must be balanced through faithful application of service rules.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. When invoking Rule 16, the government must record reasons in writing; the administrative record should clearly show which proviso is applied.
ii. If an employee is appointed to a lower post with his/her consent under Rule 16(a)(iii), the consent should be explicit and the seniority consequence must be recorded in the final order.
iii. Medical-board reports do not automatically convert a request-based cadre change into a public-interest transfer; the governmental record must indicate public-interest rationale if seniority preservation is intended.
iv. Tribunals and courts should interpret Rule 6 and Rule 16 conjunctively and avoid treating factual medical findings as determinative of legal character without rule-based justification.
v. Where incumbents’ legitimate expectations are affected, the principle of placing transferees below the existing cadre should be applied, unless the rule-authority expressly dictates otherwise.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment restores textual fidelity in service jurisprudence: rights and consequences flow from the governing rules and recorded administrative choices. The Court’s approach prudently protects both the individual’s right to continued employment (via compassionate cadre change under Rule 16) and the collective interest of the cadre by preserving incumbents’ seniority expectations through Rule 6.

Practically, the decision emphasises that administrators must document not only medical findings but also the legal basis and intended seniority consequences when effecting cadre changes. For litigators, the case reiterates the importance of the employee’s written undertakings and the final administrative order as determinative evidence.

Academically, the ruling clarifies that equating medically motivated cadre change with public-interest transfer is unsound as a general proposition; classification depends on the rule invoked and the rationale recorded. The judgement therefore strikes a balance between compassion and rule-based predictability in public employment law while disapproving an overbroad earlier High Court line on medical-board-driven transfers.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Raj Kumar & Ors., (2023) 3 SCC 773.
ii. Geetha V.M. v. Rethnasenan K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 35.
iii. K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2006) 5 SCC 386.
iv. Surendra Singh Beniwal v. Hukam Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 469.
v. M K Jagadeesh v. The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Writ Appeal No. 1263 of 2007.
vi. State of Karnataka v. Sri K. Seetharamulu, W.P. No. 65474 of 2010 (disapproved).

b. Important Statutes / Rules Referred
i. Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 — Rule 16(a)(iii).
ii. Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 — Rule 6.