On May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court, in the case of Maya P.C. & Others vs. The State of Kerala & Another, declared that treating disabled employees posted on supernumerary posts is against the Constitution.
Facts:
A group of individuals with disabilities filed an appeal. They were employed temporarily by various public institutions within the Kerala government.
Subsequently, supernumerary positions were established for these employees, which would cease upon their retirement.
The Kerala government subsequently issued an order stating that these candidates would not be eligible for the declaration of probation, seniority listings, or promotions.
Some individuals had been in regular posts and had completed their probation periods, yet due to the government order, they were removed from the list for promotions.
Consequently, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala. The Hon’ble Court ruled that employees cannot assert entitlements that are not provided in the order.
Arguments:
Appellants:
The government order did not specify the time or date on which it would take effect.
Many appellants were previously included on the seniority list, and several had completed their probation period.
Some appellants resigned from their positions and later rejoined, expecting the university to recognize them as regular employees instead of temporary staff; however, the order prohibited this.
Respondent:
The respondents argued that the benefits outlined in the order already encompassed salary, increments, pension, leave, and other allowances. Extending additional service benefits like promotions would create an inequitable precedent and affect the rights of regularly appointed employees.
As supplementary posts were created, they cannot be regarded as regular employees.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Judgment:
The court annulled the disputed order, asserting that it improperly denied the benefits granted by the previous order, which retrospectively allocated supernumerary posts.
This constitutes a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which provides for equality under the law, by treating a class of employees (those in supernumerary positions) differently without valid justification.
Legal analysis:
Is it permissible for the government to differentiate between employee categories?
According to Article 14 of the Indian Constitution (equality before the law), a classification is deemed valid if it meets two criteria:
Intelligible differentia: A clear and understandable reason for treating one group of people differently from another group.
Rational nexus: A rational link between the justification for treating a group differently and the purpose of the rule or law.
In the classic case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Court first enunciated that classification is to be made based on an intelligible differentia.
The need for a rational nexus was brought along with intelligible differentia, especially in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar (1958), in which the Supreme Court formulated a two-part test for Article 14:
The classification should be based upon an intelligible differentia.
The differentia must be logically related (nexus) to the objective sought by the law.
In this case, while there is an intelligible differentia that categorizes employees between supernumerary and regular employees,
There exists no rational nexus. The classifications undermine the intent of the law, which aims to empower disabled individuals.
That is why the order contravenes Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
Corram:
Justice Abhay S Oka
Justice Augustine George Masih
