In a key clarification on service law, the Supreme Court has drawn a sharp line between transfers of government employees made in public interest and those made at the request of the employee. The ruling came in Civil Appeal No. 4356 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 2793 of 2023) titled The Secretary to Government, Department of Health & Family Welfare & Anr. vs. K.C. Devaki.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra held that employees transferred on their own request cannot claim seniority over existing employees in the new cadre — even if the transfer was made for legitimate personal reasons like medical necessity.
Background of the Case
K.C. Devaki, the respondent, was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse in Karnataka’s Department of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy in 1979. In 1985, she requested a cadre change to a clerical post — First Division Assistant (FDA) — due to chronic bronchitis. A medical board confirmed her condition, and the government accepted her request.
Crucially, Devaki submitted a written consent stating she would accept the FDA position with seniority “below the last person” in that cadre. Following this, she was temporarily posted in 1986, and permanently re-appointed as an FDA on April 19, 1989, under Rule 16(a)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977.
Years later, Devaki challenged the seniority list dated October 1, 2007, arguing that her seniority should date back to her original appointment in 1979 as a Staff Nurse. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal agreed with her, and the High Court upheld that decision. The State government then approached the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue
The core legal question before the Court was: Does a transfer from one post to another at the request of the employee — particularly on medical grounds — entitle the employee to retain their original seniority in the new post?
The Court analysed Rule 16(a)(iii) of the 1977 Recruitment Rules, which permits cadre change for employees permanently incapacitated due to bodily infirmity. It also referred to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, which states:
“Where the transfer is made at the request of the officer, he shall be placed in the seniority list of the class or grade of service to which he is transferred below all the officers borne on that class or grade of service on or before the date of the transfer.”
Court’s Observations & Ruling
Justice Narasimha, writing the judgment, emphasized that transfers made in public interest and those made at the request of the employee serve fundamentally different purposes. The former is aimed at efficient administration, while the latter accommodates personal needs.
“Effecting or transferring employees at their behest is equally important but… does not partake the character of a transfer made in the public interest,” the Court noted.
It warned against blurring these categories, as was done by the High Court in this case:
“The High Court has fallen into an error by treating transfer made at the request of the officer on medical grounds as equivalent to transfer in public interest.”
The Court further highlighted that Devaki had given explicit consent to be placed at the bottom of the FDA seniority list, and this was reflected in the government’s 1989 appointment order.
The Court cited earlier decisions, including K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala (2006) and Surendra Singh Beniwal v. Hukam Singh (2009), to reinforce the principle that voluntary transfers do not carry forward prior seniority.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka High Court’s judgment dated October 25, 2021 (in W.P. No. 42244 of 2019) and the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. It upheld the government’s 2007 seniority list, which placed Devaki’s seniority from the date of her reappointment in 1989.
The Court made no order as to costs.
