Kerala State Order Denying Promotion to Persons with Disabilities Is Quashed; Supernumerary Regularisation Held Protected from Retrospective Curtailment

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih heard appeals by persons with benchmark disabilities challenging a State Government clarification which denied them probation, inclusion in combined seniority lists and promotion after they were regularised against supernumerary posts by a 2013 Government Order. The appeals arose from Division Bench judgments of the Kerala High Court which had upheld the 2016 clarification; the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether that clarification could curtail benefits conferred by the earlier regularisation orders.

The Court allowed the appeals, held that the later G.O. could not withdraw what was conferred by the G.O. dated 18 May 2013 and found the 2016 clarification to be discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Court observed that the 2013 order created "supernumerary posts for granting re-appointment to about 2677 physically handicapped who had completed 179 days of service" and that "the said supernumerary posts shall cease to exist upon retirement of the said employees." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The G.O. dated 18th May, 2013, is to ensure that the persons with disability appointed through the employment exchange in a particular post should be regularly appointed. ... Clause 3.5 of the G.O. dated 3rd February, 2016 seeks to withdraw what is specifically conferred by the G.O. dated 18th May 2013. Hence, the G.O. dated 3rd February 2016 is discriminatory and irrational and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The Court set aside the Division Bench judgments of the Kerala High Court, restored orders of the Single Judge and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, and allowed the appeals.

Background The dispute arose after the State of Kerala issued a G.O. dated 18 May 2013 regularising approximately 2,677 persons with disabilities who had been engaged temporarily under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958, by creating supernumerary posts. The G.O. stated that "detailed guidelines regarding the regular appointment of the said employees shall be issued later" and that the supernumerary posts "shall cease to exist upon retirement of the said employees." Many beneficiaries were reappointed on a regular basis, placed on probation and included in provisional seniority lists; some relinquished existing regular posts in reliance on the reappointment.

A subsequent G.O. dated 3 February 2016 clarified that persons regularised under the 2013 order would not be eligible for declaration of probation, inclusion in combined seniority lists, or consideration for promotion, treating the placements as concessional and not conferring parity with regular appointees. Petitioners challenged that clarification before the Kerala High Court and the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. Single Judges and the tribunal had ruled in favour of beneficiaries, but a Division Bench of the High Court reversed those decisions, following a line of reasoning that supernumerary, concessional appointments did not create enforceable rights to promotion or seniority and relied on precedents such as Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3).

The Supreme Court examined the G.O.s and appointment orders, noted that many appointees were placed on probation and had completed service and departmental tests, and considered submissions under Articles 14 and 16 and provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court found that the 2016 clarification attempted to withdraw benefits already conferred by the 2013 G.O., that beneficiaries had altered their positions in reliance upon regularisation, and that retrospective withdrawal was "discriminatory and irrational." The Court therefore set aside the Division Bench judgments, restored the earlier favourable orders and allowed the appeals. No interim directions beyond the quashing of the clarification were recorded; the appeals were allowed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 773 (Civil Appeal Nos. 14915-14919 of 2024) Case Title: Maya P.C. & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]