Court : Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
Bench : Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine Geeoge Masih
Petitioners : Maya P.C. and Ors.
Respondents : State of Kerala and Public institutions
Judgment delivered on : May 23, 2025
Laws and Acts associated with the case :
- Constitution of India
- Article 14 – Right to Equality
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
It gives us two important concepts –
Equality before law – Negative concept : it ensures no one is above law and all are treated equally.
Equal protection of laws – Positive concept : It is the responsibility of the Government to provide equal treatment to all persons under similar circumstances.
While Article 14 disapproves class legislation, it permits reasonable classification when:
There is an intelligible differentia meaning that there is a clearly defined distinguishing feature on the basis of which one group can be separated from another.
And there is a reasonable nexus which means that there is a logical connection between the classification and the objective of law.
- Article 16 -Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
- Section 33 Reservation of Persons with Disabilities Act (2016)
Requires governments to identify posts suitable for reservation and ensure the rights of persons with benchmark disabilities.
Facts of the case :
- The appellants in this case are persons with benchmark disabilities, each with a physical disability exceeding 40%.
- They were engaged in various public institutions in the State of Kerala under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (for short, “the KS & SSR”), which governs temporary appointments made in public interest, for a period not exceeding 179 days
- It was later regularised by a Government Order (hereafter termed as G.O.) dated 18.05.2013 . Meaning permanent employment assured with benefits of seniority , promotion etc.
- G.O. 18.05.2013 Regularized 2,677 disabled employees (temporarily appointed between 1999–2003) via supernumerary posts, abolished on retirement.
- G.O. 03.02.2016: Imposed restrictions—no seniority, probation, or promotion for these employees.
Issues raised :
- whether the G.O. 2016 violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Whether the G.O. 2016 arbitrarily withdrew benefits assured in the G.O. 2013
- Whether the G.O. 2016 is in Contravention of RPwD Act 2016
Contention of the Petitioners
Withdrawal of Benefits Granted by G.O. 2013
The Kerala Government Order dated 18 May 2013, regularized approximately 2,677 persons with benchmark disabilities as supernumerary posts, granting them probation, inclusion in seniority lists, and potential promotion, all of which was seen as permanent in nature.
The Petitioners contended that the subsequent G.O. dated 3 February 2016, which retrospectively denied these service benefits, was unlawful since the original order made no such exclusions and conferred a legitimate expectation of full employment benefits.
Violation of Article 14 and 16
It was contended that the said G.O. 2016 violated Article 14 which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law as well as Article 16 which guarantees the right to equal representation in employment
Contravention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Counsel argued the 2016 G.O. undermined the statutory mandate of the RPwD Act, 2016—especially Section 33, which ensures reservation and equitable treatment of persons with disabilities in government service.
Withdrawing probation, promotion, and seniority benefits was inconsistent with the Act’s aim to provide substantive equality in employment
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
It was argued that because of the G.O. 2013 which promised a secured assurance of permanent employment many people resigned from their jobs to avail the benefits .Now the Government Order of 2016 retracting these benefits was seen as unjust and unlawful .
Contentions of the Respondent ( State of Kerala )
- The State Government objected saying the G.O. 2013 was granted as policy concessions given to supernumerary posts and that the aggrieved parties cannot claim parity with regular employees .
- That the G.O. 2016 does neither violate any provisions of the Constitution nor any Section of the RPwD Act 2016.
- They invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Uma Devi to argue that supernumerary posts did not create vested rights to service benefits like seniority or promotion
- It was also asserted that the G.O. 2013 explicitly stated these posts would cease once the incumbents retired, reinforcing the temporary concession-like nature of the order
Rationale and Judgment of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court upheld that the G.O. 2013 intended to provide permanent employment evidenced by issuance of probation orders and inclusion in seniority lists
- The case of Uma Devi is not applicable as used by the respondent as a point of contention and it shouldn’t be used to deny regularisation that was already promised. It was held that the judgment’s purpose was to discourage illegal backdoor entries, not to penalize workers serving in sanctioned roles.
- The persons employed through G.O. 2013 were properly sanctioned, legal and with proper recruitment procedures
- That G.O. 2016 was arbitrary , discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as a result of which it was quashed completely.
- The Court observed that the G.O. 2016 was also in contravention with the RPwD Act 2016 which guarantees 3% reservations and equitable treatment in Government services.
- The legitimate expectation was upheld. The Petitioners’ reliance on G.O. 2013 was protected and the retrospective withdrawal of benefits by G.O. 2016 was deemed unfair and unjust.
- High Court Division Bench’s judgment set aside; Single Judge/Tribunal orders restored, granting:
- Seniority, probation, and promotion benefits to appellants.
Inference
The Constitution of India guarantees Right to Equality and equal representation in employment to every citizen of India and the denial of which would hamper the growth and development of a progressive nation . In the case of Maya P.C. VS State of Kerala, the G.O. 2016 arbitrarily withdrew the rights and assurances produced by the G.O. 2013 thereby questioning the legitimacy of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed under the RPwDA Act 2016. Such treatment negates the purpose of Equality which aims to ensure substantive, equal appointment and integration.
The Supreme Court precedent yet again reassures about the supremacy of the Constitution.
References
- Constitution of India Article 14
- Constitution of India Article 16
- Reservation of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016
- Maya P.C. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2025 INSC 773 (India), Supreme Court, May 23, 2025
Naba Amir
Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia