Holding

When a government employee is transferred at his own request, seniority is fixed from the date of transfer and the employee is placed below all existing officers in the new cadre, per Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules and Rule 16 of the 1977 Recruitment Rules.

Summary

The case concerned K.C. Devaki, a staff nurse appointed in 1979, who sought a cadre change to First Division Assistant on medical grounds and consented to be placed below the last incumbent in the new post. The Government accepted her request, issued orders in 1989 effecting the change, and later issued a seniority list in 2007 fixing her seniority from the date of transfer. Devaki challenged the seniority, arguing it should be backdated to her original 1979 appointment. The Supreme Court examined Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (Rule 16) and Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (Rule 6), holding that a transfer made at the employee’s request does not carry over prior seniority and the employee must be placed below existing officers in the new cadre. The Court clarified the distinction between transfers in public interest and those at the employee’s request, emphasizing that the latter results in seniority from the transfer date. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal, confirming that Devaki’s seniority is to be counted from 19 April 1989.

Issues considered

Whether a transfer or reappointment of a government employee affects his/her seniority in the new post.
Whether seniority in the new post depends on whether the transfer is made in public interest or at the employee's own request.

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose for consideration that whether the transfer or reappointment of a government employee from one post to another impact his/her seniority in the new post, and if so, is such seniority contingent upon whether the transfer interest or at the employees own request. Headnotes† Service law – Seniority – Transfer or reappointment of government employee from one post to another – Impact on seniority in the new post – Seniority, if contingent upon the transfer made in public interest or

Subjects

SeniorityPromotionTransferTransfer on medical groundsTransfer in public interestTransfer made at the request of the officerConsent to take seniority below last personEmployment defined as statusRequest of change of cadreReappointment of a government employeeImpact on seniority in the new postStaff nurse request to change her cadre to First Division Assistant on medical groundsSeniority listOfficer by bodily infirmity permanently incapacitatedEffective and efficient administration

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1133 : 2025 INSC 389

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr.
v.
K.C. Devaki
(Civil Appeal No. 4356 of 2025)
25 March 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Manoj Misra, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose for consideration that whether the transfer or
reappointment of a government employee from one post to another
impact his/her seniority in the new post, and if so, is such seniority
contingent upon whether the transfer was made in public interest
or at the employees own request.

Headnotes†
Service law – Seniority – Transfer or reappointment of
government employee from one post to another – Impact
on seniority in the new post – Seniority, if contingent upon
the transfer made in public interest or at the employees own
request – On facts, the respondent-staff nurse’s request
to change her cadre to First Division Assistant on medical
grounds – On acceptance of the request, and on acceptance
of the consent letter to be placed below the last person in the
transferred post, issuance of the orders of posting changing
the cadre of the respondent from Staff Nurse to First Division
Assistant– Respondent continued in the new position for
18 years, and thereafter, the seniority list was released –
Challenged by the respondent on the ground that the seniority
must be fixed as per the initial appointment as Staff Nurse in
1979 and not on the basis of the entry into the new cadre in
1989 as First Division Assistant – Application allowed by the
tribunal – Said order upheld by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Invocation of r.16 of the 1977 Rules is an exception –
However, if the power is exercised, it would operate notwithstanding
anything contained in the 1977 Rules or other rules and reason

* Author
1134 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for exercise for such a power must be evidenced in the written
text of the record – Officer who by bodily infirmity is permanently
incapacitated can be appointed to the new post in relaxation of the
existing Rules, such appointment shall not be lower than the one
he holds – Prescription that such an officer cannot be appointed
to a post lower than that held by him or her can be waived or
deviated from if the officer himself consents for the same – On
facts, the High Court erred in treating transfer made at the request
of the officer on medical grounds as equivalent to transfer in public
interest – Respondent accepted the appointment after consenting
to be placed below the last person in the transferred post, which
position is recorded in the order of 1989 itself, the seniority has
to be with effect from 1989 only – Decision of the government
in issuance of final seniority list granting seniority w.e.f. 1989 is
in consonance with r.16 of the 1977 Rules and r.6 of the 1957
Rules which specifically provide that where transfers are made at
the request of the officer, the employee shall be placed below all
the officers borne in that class in the transferred post – Tribunal
as well as the High Court erred in directing the appellant to grant
seniority to the respondent in the cadre of First Division Assistant
with effect from the date in which the said respondent has entered
service in the cadre of Staff Nurse instead of 1989, when she was
appointed in the new cadre of First Division Assistant – Impugned
order set aside – Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
Rules, 1977 – r.16 – Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority)
Rules, 1957. [Paras 13, 20-22, 24, 25]

Service Law – Transfer – Transfer made in public interest and
transfer made at the request of the officer – Difference between:
Held: Purpose of transfer, considerations that weigh, the
consequences that follow a transfer made in public interest,
as against a transfer made at the request of the officer, vary
substantially – Purpose and object of transfer in public interest
is to ensure effective and efficient administration – It is founded,
sourced, and rooted in administrative exigencies and nothing else –
On the other hand, where a transfer is sought at the request of the
officer and if the government is satisfied with the genuineness of
the request, it may accept the request and direct transfer – This
is fairness in action as governmental power accommodates, as
it must, human needs and vulnerabilities – However, this kind of
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1135

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

transfer, does not partake the character of a transfer made in the
public interest – If a government employee holding a particular post
is transferred on public interest, he carries with him his existing
status including seniority to the transferred post – However, if an
officer is transferred at his own request, such a transferred employee
will have to be accommodated in the transferred post, subject to
the claims and status of the other employees at the transferred
place, as their interests cannot be varied without there being any
public interest in the transfer – Subject to specific provision of the
Rules governing the services, such transferees are generally placed
at the bottom, below the junior-most employee in the category
in the new cadre or department – Rationale in assignment of
such seniority is to avoid heartburn of existing employees in the
transferred cadre. [Paras 15-19]

Case Law Cited
State of Karnataka v. Sri. K. Seetharamulu, W.P. No. 65474 of
2010 dated 17.09.2010 – disapproved.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors. [2022]
15 SCR 847 : (2023) 3 SCC 773; Geetha V.M. v. Rethnasenan K.
[2025] 1 SCR 515 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 35; K.P. Sudhakaran v.
State of Kerala [2006] Supp. 2 SCR 291 : (2006) 5 SCC 386;
Surendra Singh Beniwal v. Hukam Singh [2009] 6 SCR 880 :
(2009) 6 SCC 469; M K Jagadeesh v. The Registrar General, High
Court of Karnataka, Writ Appeal No. 1263 of 2007 – referred to.

List of Acts
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977;
Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957.

List of Keywords
Seniority; Promotion; Transfer; Transfer on medical grounds;
Transfer in public interest; Transfer made at the request of the
officer; Consent to take seniority below last person; Employment
defined as status; Request of change of cadre; Reappointment
of a government employee; Impact on seniority in the new post;
Staff nurse request to change her cadre to First Division Assistant
on medical grounds; Seniority list; Officer by bodily infirmity
permanently incapacitated; Effective and efficient administration.
1136 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4356 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 42244 of 2019

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
V. N. Raghupathy, Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Ms. Mythili S,
M. Bangaraswamy, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Shiv Kumar,
Ms. Vaishnavi.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Himanshu Chaubey, Siddharth Garg, Himanshu Chaubey, Srijan
Sinha, Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Srajan Yadav.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. Does the transfer or reappointment of a government employee from
one post to another impact his/her seniority in the new post, and if
so, is such seniority contingent upon whether the transfer was made
in public interest or at the employees own request? This is the short
question that has arisen for our consideration.
3. The fundamental principle underlying the relationship between the
State and its employee is that it is governed by administrative rules,
rather than contractual agreements. In view of the power of the
State to modify the terms and conditions of services by unilaterally
amending the Rules, this kind of employment is defined as status.1

1 State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Raj Kumar and Ors., (2023) 3 SCC 773 declared the consequence
of status as,
“(iii) The hallmark of status is in the legal rights and obligations imposed by laws that may be framed and
altered unilaterally by the Government without the consent of the employee.
(iv) In view of the dominance of rules that govern the relationship between the Government and its
employee, all matters concerning employment, conditions of service including termination are governed
by the rules. There are no rights outside the provision of the rules.”
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1137

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

Therefore, when grievance of an employee is brought to a Court or
a Tribunal, the primary question is about the Rule that governs the
services. At this stage there is no value judgment about the executive
action, unless of course when the Rule itself is challenged on the
ground of invalidity or arbitrariness. So, we simply look at the Rule
that governs the services and determine whether the action is in
consonance with the mandate of the Rule.
4. The Rules that govern the service of the respondent are the Karnataka
Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 19772 and Karnataka
Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 19573. The context in which
interpretation and application of these Rules are to be found in the
facts of the case, which, to the extent that they are relevant for our
consideration, are as follows.
5. The respondent was appointed as a Staff Nurse in the Department
of Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy, State of Karnataka
in the year 1979. She submitted a representation to the government
and requested to change her cadre to First Division Assistant on
medical grounds. Following her request, the government sought
opinion of the Director of the Department who asked the respondent
to appear before the medical board for examination. The board
submitted its report on 22.04.1985 indicating that the respondent
was in fact suffering from bronchitis and that she will not be able to
carry out the duties of a Staff Nurse.
6. Following the decision of the government accepting her request
change of cadre, the respondent was asked to submit a consent
letter, which she did on 03.06.1985 indicating that “with reference to
the above subject, I hereby give my consent for the offer to change
designation to clerical nature of work in the pay scale of Rs.630-1200
and to take seniority below the last person”. Accepting her consent
to be placed below the last person in the transferred post, orders
of temporary posting, followed by final order dated 19.04.1989 was
issued by the government changing the cadre of the respondent
from Staff Nurse to First Division Assistant on medical grounds and
to take the position below the last candidate. The relevant portion
of the order is as under:

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘1977 Recruitment Rules’.
3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘1957 Seniority Rules’.
1138 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“PROCEEDINGS OF THE KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT
Subject: Change in cadre to Smt. K.C. Devaki from the
post of Staff Nurse to First Division Assistant post on
medical grounds-reg.
In the letter dated: 8.7.85 read at (1) above, the
Director, Department of Indian Systems of Medicine and
Homeopathy, Bengaluru has stated that Smt. K.C. Devaki,
Staff Nurse, Sri. Jayachamarajendra Institute of Indian
Medicine, Bengaluru has requested for cadre change on
medical grounds and the Medical Board has recommended
in this regard. Along with the copy of the same, he has
recommended for cadre change from the post of staff
Nurse to First Division Assistant post.
On examining the proposal in detail, an instruction has been
given vide the Government letter dated: 11.2.86 read at
(2) above to issue a cadre change order after determining
whether the cadre changing employees are eligible or not
to perform the duties prescribed to changed post.
As per the Government letter dated: 11.2.86, vide O.M.
dated: 24.4.86 Smt. K.C. Devaki, Devaki, Staff Nurse, Sri.
Jayachamarajendra Institute of Indian Medicine, Bengaluru
has been appointed temporarily for three months at the post
of First Division Assistant at Government College of Indian
Medicine, Mysuru, so as to examine her performance.
Thereafter continued in the same post, till now.
Vide letter dated: 3.12.88 read at (4) above, it is reported
that Smt. K.C. Devaki, Staff Nurse, is performing duties
satisfactorily temporarily in the post which is to be cadre
changed and passed the departmental examinations
prescribed for the said post. As per rule..16(a) of the
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules,
1977, while changing from one cadre to another cadre,
educational qualification, prescribed for the post to be
cadre changed should be attained. But, since Smt. K.C.
Devaki did not attain degree, clarification has sought
whether cadre could be changed as per the Government
Letter No. HFW 158 PIM 84, dated: 11.2.86. Since it is not
mentioned in General Recruitment rule 16(a) (111) about
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1139

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

minimum eligibility and since the Director has stated that
Smt. K.C. Devaki has performed satisfactorily as First
Division Assistant for three years, the Government has
decided to change the cadre of Smt. K.C. Devaki from
the Staff Nurse post to First Division Assistant.

Government Order No. HFW 536 PIM 88,
Bengaluru, dated: 19.4.1989
On examining the proposal in detail, the Government has
ordered by changing the cadre of Smt. K.C. Devaki /from
the post of Staff Nurse to First Division Assistant post
as per rule 16(a) (111) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, subjecting to following
conditions:-
1) She shall be passed departmental examination
prescribed to the changed post within 2 years from
the date of cadre change.
2) In the cadre of changing, she shall get the service
seniority below the last candidate on that date.
3) No any travel allowance is available to her.
4) Hereafter such cadre change could not be given to
her in her service.”
7. The Government of Karnataka, the appellant herein, submits that the
respondent continued in the new position as First Division Assistant
at the place as was accepted by her from 1989 to 2007. However,
when the seniority list was released in 2007, she approached the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal4 challenging the final seniority list
dated 01.10.2007 on the ground that her seniority must be fixed as
per her initial appointment as Staff Nurse on 05.01.1979 and not
on the basis of her entry into the new cadre on 19.01.1989 as First
Division Assistant.
8. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application by following the decision
of the High Court in the State of Karnataka v. Sri. K. Seetharamulu5.

4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’.
5 W.P. No. 65474 of 2010 dated 17.09.2010, hereinafter, ‘K. Seetharamulu’
1140 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The writ petition filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the
decision of the Tribunal was dismissed by the order impugned
before us. This is how the State is in appeal. We heard Mr. V. N.
Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and
Mr. Siddharth Garg for the respondent.
9. Analysis: The factual background, as indicated hereinabove clearly
establishes that the change of cadre from Staff Nurse to First Division
Assistant occurred due to a request by the respondent and the same
was considered under the 1977 Recruitment Rules. To consider
whether the final seniority list dated 01.10.2007 is legal or not, we
need to examine the mandate of Rule 16 which is extracted herein
for ready reference:
“Rule 16. Relaxation of rules relating to appointment
and qualifications:- Notwithstanding anything contained
in these rules or the rules of recruitment specially made
in respect of any service or post, the Government may,
for reason to be recorded in writing-
(a) appoint to a post-
(i) an officer of the Defence Services, an All India
Services or a Civil Service of the Union, or the
Civil Service of any other State;
(ii) an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade
by transfer or by deputation from any other
service of the State for recruitment to which
these rules apply:
Provided that appointment by transfer under
this sub-clause shall not be made unless the
officer has passed the examination prescribed
under the Karnataka Civil Services (Service
and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules,
1974 for the post to which he is proposed to
be transferred.
Provided further that where it is necessary in
public interest to appoint an officer belonging
to a service where has no equivalent grade, an
officer holding a post in the next lower grade in
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1141

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

such service may be appointed by deputation
for a period not exceeding two years.
Provided also that no such appointment shall
be to a post which is equivalent to or higher
than the next promotional post to such officer
in such other service.
(iii) an officer who by bodily infirmity is permanently
incapacitated for the post which he holds;
Provided that appointment under this sub-clause
shall not be:-
(1) to a post lower than that held by such
officer save with his consent;
(2) to a post higher than the post held by such
officer except when the Government is of
the opinion that there is no other equivalent
post to which such officer can be appointed.
[(iiia) an officer who by bodily infirmity is temporarily
incapacitated for the post which he holds:
Provided that the duration of appointment under
this sub-clause shall not be for a period longer
than the duration of the bodily infirmity on
account of which he is held to be incapacitated to
hold the post in the service to which he belongs.]
(iv) in the State Civil Services Group-A on deputation,
a person with specialised qualifications in the
service of a University established by law in India
and holding an equivalent post for such period
not exceeding five years and on such terms as
the Government may in each case determine;
Provided that, whereas the Government is of the
opinion that in view of the special circumstances
of a case the period of deputation has to be
extended beyond five years as stipulated under
this clause, it may, for reasons to be recorded
in writing, extend the same for a further period
of one year at a time subject to a maximum of
1142 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

three years, so however, that the total period of
deputation including the extended period shall
not exceed eight years.
(b) relax, by notification for such period as may be
specified therein, the qualifications prescribed
for purposes of direct recruitment in the rules of
recruitment specially made in respect of any service
or post, if candidates possessing the prescribed
qualifications are not available :
Provided that in the case of a post for which
recruitment is required to be made in consultation
with the Commission, such relaxation shall not be
made except after consulting the Commission.”
10. The 1977 Recruitment Rules govern the process of recruitment to
post under State civil services. While Rule 3 provides the method of
recruitment, Rule 4 prescribes the procedure of appointment, Rule 5
specifies disqualifications for appointment, and Rule 7 prescribes the
procedure for promotion. Rules 3A and 15 provide for appointment
of ex-servicemen and retired government servants.
11. Rule 16, with which we are concerned, prescribes relaxation of rules
relating to appointment and qualifications. This Rule is in recognition
of exigencies of public service which may require employment of
certain persons who may not possess the prescribed qualifications.
It is therefore in the form of an exception, which is the reason it
provides that “notwithstanding anything contained in the rules or
recruitment specially made in respect of any service or post”. It is
also provided that for invoking this Rule, the government must record
its reasons in writing.
12. Rule 16 is in two parts: Rule 16(a) enables the government to
make appointments of certain officers and Rule 16(b) empowers
such appointments by relaxing the qualifications prescribed. We are
concerned with Rule 16(a), which in turn comprises three categories
of officers in whose favour the relaxation could be made. The first
relates to appointment of officers who worked in Defence Service,
All-India Service or a Civil Service of the Union, or the State. The
second relates to appointment of an officer holding a post of an
equivalent grade by transfer or by deputation. The third, with which
we are concerned, relates to appointment of an officer who by bodily
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1143

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the post he holds. For
appointment of such an officer, the Rule prescribes two conditions
and they are indicated in the proviso. The first condition is that the
said officer should not be appointed to a post lower than the post held
by him or her. The second condition is that if the officer consents,
he can be appointed to a post lower than the one that was held by
him or her. This is the crucial facet of the Rule that has fallen for
our consideration.
13. Having analysed the Rule in detail, we can re-state its application
and operation in the following manner.
i. Invocation of Rule 16 is an exception. However, if the power
is exercised, it will operate notwithstanding anything contained
in the 1977 Recruitment Rules or other rules and reason for
exercise for such a power must be evidenced in the written
text of the record.
ii. An officer who by bodily infirmity is permanently incapacitated
can be appointed to the new post in relaxation of the existing
Rules. However, such appointment shall not be lower than the
one he holds.
iii. The prescription that such an officer cannot be appointed to
a post lower than that held by him or her can be waived or
deviated from if the officer himself consents for the same.
14. We will now refer to next set of Rules that govern fixation of seniority
of government employees and they are the 1957 Seniority Rules.
We are concerned with Rule 6 which is extracted herein below:
“Rule 6. The transfer of a person in public interest from
one class or grade of a service to another class or grade
carrying the same pay or scale of pay shall not be treated
as first appointment to the later for purposes of seniority;
and the seniority of a person so transferred shall be
determined with reference to his first appointment to the
class or grade from which he was transferred;
Provided that, 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.
1144 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Provided further, that the seniority of a person transferred
in public interest vis a vis the persons actually holding the
post in the Class or Grade to which he is transferred shall
be determined on the date of such transfer with reference
to his first appointment to the class or grade from which
he was transferred.
Explanation.- For the purpose of the above proviso, the
persons actually holding the post do not include the
persons who have before the date of such transfer been
promoted, whether in an officiating or substantive capacity
to a higher class or grade.”
15. The above rule contemplates transfers under two contingencies, the
first is when the transfer is made in public interest and the second
is when transfer is made at the request of the officer. The purpose
of transfer, considerations that weigh, the consequences that follow
a transfer made in public interest, as against a transfer made at the
request of the officer, vary substantially.
16. The purpose and object of transfer in public interest is singular and
straightforward, i.e., to ensure effective and efficient administration. This
is for the reason that administration and provisioning goods and
services in a welfare State requires the government to deploy officers
at different places and the exigencies of service take within its sweep
the need to redeploy or transfer them from one place to another for
myriad reasons, all intended to subserve the purpose of the State.
All these decisions are transfers in public interest.
17. On the other hand, where a transfer is sought at the request of the
officer and if the government is satisfied with the genuineness of the
request, it may accept the request and direct transfer. This is fairness
in action as governmental power accommodates, as it must, human
needs and vulnerabilities. However, this kind of transfer, effected at
the request of the officer, does not partake the character of a transfer
made in the public interest.6
18. Transfers characterised as in public interest are founded, sourced,
and rooted in administrative exigencies and nothing else. Effecting
or transferring employees at their behest is equally important but

6 Geetha V.M. v. Rethnasenan K. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 35.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1145

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

exercise of that power and discretion is to subserve a different
cause or a value, which is distinct from transfer in public interest. It
is necessary to draw a clear distinction between these two, as their
purpose, procedure, and consequence are distinct. This distinction
is in fact recognised and incorporated in the Rules.
19. If a government employee holding a particular post is transferred
on public interest, he carries with him his existing status including
seniority to the transferred post. However, if an officer is transferred
at his own request, such a transferred employee will have to be
accommodated in the transferred post, subject to the claims and
status of the other employees at the transferred place, as their
interests cannot be varied without there being any public interest
in the transfer. Subject to specific provision of the Rules governing
the services, such transferees are generally placed at the bottom,
below the junior-most employee in the category in the new cadre
or department. The rationale in assignment of such seniority is to
avoid heartburn of existing employees in the transferred cadre.7 In
K.P. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala8, this Court held:
“11. In service jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a
government servant holding a particular post is transferred
to the same post in the same cadre, the transfer will not
wipe out his length of service in the post till the date of
transfer and the period of service in the post before his
transfer has to be taken into consideration in computing the
seniority in the transferred post. But where a government
servant is so transferred on his own request, the transferred
employee will have to forego his seniority till the date
of transfer, and will be placed at the bottom below the
juniormost employee in the category in the new cadre
or department. This is because a government servant
getting transferred to another unit or department for his
personal considerations, cannot be permitted to disturb the
seniority of the employees in the department to which he is
transferred, by claiming that his service in the department
from which he has been transferred, should be taken

7 Surendra Singh Beniwal v. Hukam Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 469
8 (2006) 5 SCC 386
1146 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

into account. This is also because a person appointed
to a particular post in a cadre, should know the strength
of the cadre and prospects of promotion on the basis of
the seniority list prepared for the cadre and any addition
from outside would disturb such prospects. The matter is,
however, governed by the relevant service rules.”
20. In the order impugned before us, the High Court has fallen into an
error by blurring the distinction between the two functions and treating
transfer made at the request of the officer on medical grounds as
equivalent to transfer in public interest. Keeping the distinction is
essential since origin and the consequences that follow are distinct.
21. We will now refer to the precedents cited by the Tribunal and
the High Court. The High Court referred to its own decision in
K. Seetharamulu (supra). Having examined the said decision, we
are of the opinion that it does not lay down the correct principle. In
fact, the applicable Rule is not analysed and the decision is based
on the facts and circumstances of the case, where the employee
is said to have suffered injury during the course of employment.
However, a sweeping observation in that judgment that “change
of cadre was accorded pursuant to the report of the medical board
and therefore it has to be treated as change of cadre in the public
interest” is unsustainable as change of cadre pursuant to report of
medical board is not determinative of whether the transfer is for
public interest or effected at the request of the officer.
22. Having considered Rule 16 of the 1977 Rules, as per which the
respondent accepted the appointment after consenting to be placed
before the last person in the transferred post, which position is
recorded in the order dated 19.04.1989 itself, we are of the opinion
that seniority has to be with effect from 1989 only. The decision of
the government in issuance of final seniority list dated 01.10.2007
granting seniority w.e.f. 19.04.1989 is in consonance with Rule 16
of 1977 Recruitment Rules. This decision is also in consonance
with Rule 6 of the 1957 Seniority Rules which specifically provide
that where transfers are made at the request of the officer, the
employee shall be placed below all the officers borne in that class
in the transferred post.
23. Before we conclude, we may also refer to another Division Bench
judgment of the Karnataka High Court in M K Jagadeesh v. The
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1147

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka9 which examined the Rule
16(a)(iii) in the context of an undertaking given by the employee to
work as a junior-most in the transferred post. The facts in our case
are identical to the decision in M K Jagadeesh (supra) in as much
as the change of cadre occurred under the same Rule, and in fact,
the employee was transferred to a similar post i.e. the First Division
Assistant. Further, the officer also gave an identical undertaking that
he will occupy the junior-most position in the transferred post. The
decision in M K Jagadeesh (supra) is unfortunately not referred in
Seetharamulu (supra) and has also been missed by the High Court
in the order impugned before us. The relevant portion of the decision
in M K Jagadeesh is extracted hereinbelow:
“2. While the appellant was working as Stenographer in the
Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Tumkur he applied
for change of cadre and requested for appointment as First
Division Assistant on medical grounds. In his representation
requesting for change of cadre and appointment as First
Division Assistant he gave an undertaking that he was
willing to become junior to the juniormost First Division
Assistant in the unit. Rule-16(a)(iii) of the Karnataka Civil
Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 permitted
such change of cadre if the employee was willing to become
junior to the juniormost in the new cadre. Hence the request
of the appellant was granted and he was appointed by
transfer to the post of First Division Assistant on medical
grounds subject to the condition that he shall become junior
to the juniormost official in the changed cadre in Tumkur
unit. The request was granted as per Annexure-A order
dated 19.8.2000. After accepting the above mentioned
change of cadre on the basis of Annexure-A order, the
appellant submitted a representation in the year 2007
requesting that his seniority in the cadre of First Division
Assistant may be reckoned from 23.7.1992 instead of
19.8.2000, the date of Annexure-A order.”
23.1 Dismissing the writ appeal filed by the said employee, the
Division Bench of the High Court held as under:

9 Writ Appeal No. 1263 of 2007 dated 25.07.2007, hereinafter, ‘MK Jagadeesh’
1148 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“3…. Having sought change of cadre giving an
undertaking to become the junior to the juniormost in
the new cadre and having accepted the appointment
to the new cadre with the condition that he would be
junior to the juniormost First Division Assistant in the
unit, it is not open to the appellant to request that his
seniority must be reckoned from the original date of
appointment as stenographer….”
23.2 Interestingly the Division Bench of the High Court also refer
to the relevant Rules relating to fixation of seniority and held
as under:
“3. …the 1st proviso to Rule-6 of the Karnataka
Government Servants’ (Seniority) Rules, 1957
clearly stipulated that 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. There is no challenge against
the said statutory provision in the Writ Petition. … the
1st proviso to Rule-6 of the Karnataka Government
Servants’ (Seniority) Rules, 1957 is incorporated to
recognise the service of the employees in the new
cadre who have already been appointed and to
protect their seniority in that cadre. If the appellant’s
request is allowed, the persons who were already
working as First Division Assistants in the Tumkur
unit before the appointment of the appellant as First
Division Assistant will be adversely affected, but they
are not made parties to the Writ Petition.”
24. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal as
well as the High Court committed an error in directing the appellant
to grant seniority to the respondent in the cadre of First Division
Assistant with effect from the date in which the said respondent has
entered service in the cadre of Staff Nurse from 05.01.1979, instead
of 19.04.1989, when she was appointed in the new cadre of First
Division Assistant.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1149

The Secretary to Government Department of
Health & Family Welfare & Anr. v. K.C. Devaki

25. For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal and set aside
the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 25.10.2021
in W.P. No. 42244 of 2019.
26. No order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain