Summary and Analysis of Maya P.C. & Ors. vs. The State of Kerala & Anr. (2025 INSC 773)

Court and Jurisdiction

• Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

• Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih

• Judgment Date: May 23, 2025

Case Background

1. Appellants: Persons with benchmark disabilities (40%+), temporarily employed under Rule 9(a)(i) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), later regularized via G.O. dated 18.05.2013.

2. Respondents: State of Kerala and public institutions (e.g., Mahatma Gandhi University, KPSC).

3. Issue: Whether the G.O. dated 03.02.2016, denying seniority, probation, and promotion to regularized disabled employees, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Key Facts

• 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.

• Appellants’ Grievance: Despite regularization, they were excluded from seniority lists and promotions, contrary to initial assurances.

Submissions

• Appellants:
  G.O. 2013 guaranteed regular employment; subsequent G.O. 2016 arbitrarily withdrew benefits.
  Violates Section 33 of the 2016 Act (3% reservation for disabled persons) and constitutional equality.
  Many resigned from prior jobs relying on G.O. 2013.

• State:
  Regularization was a policy concession, not a right; supernumerary posts cannot claim parity with regular employees.
  Cited Uma Devi (2006) to argue no vested right to promotions.

Supreme Court’s Findings

1. G.O. 2013 Intent:
   Aimed to grant permanent employment to disabled employees, evidenced by probation clauses in appointment orders.

2. G.O. 2016 Invalid:
   Arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14—withdrew vested benefits retrospectively.
   Contravened the 2016 Act’s objective of inclusive employment for disabled persons.

3. Precedent Distinction:
   Uma Devi inapplicable—G.O. 2013 explicitly promised regular status, unlike ad-hoc appointments in the cited case.

Directions

1. G.O. 03.02.2016 quashed as unconstitutional.

2. High Court Division Bench’s judgment set aside; Single Judge/Tribunal orders restored, granting:
   Seniority, probation, and promotion benefits to appellants.

3. Appeals allowed with costs.

Legal Principles

• Equality (Articles 14–16): State cannot retrospectively deprive disabled employees of regularization benefits.

• 2016 Act Compliance: Regularization must align with Section 33 (reservation and equal opportunities).

• Legitimate Expectation: Employees acted on G.O. 2013’s promise; subsequent withdrawal unfair.