Extraordinary Circumstances and Relaxation Powers: Kerala High Court Upholds COVID-19-Based Exemption in Departmental Tests

1. Introduction

The case Sajeev N., Senior Tax Assistant, v. Anumol P. S. came before the Kerala High Court as OP(KAT) No.356/2024. This dispute arose from the issuance of a one-time exemption order by the Government of Kerala for State Government employees who had not passed mandatory departmental tests necessary for promotion during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Multiple employees challenged the exemption before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which initially struck down the government’s order pertaining to promotion to the position of Senior Clerk/Senior Tax Assistant. The petitioners, aggrieved by the Tribunal’s decision, appealed to the High Court.

The primary question was whether the Government’s power to relax statutory rules for promotion — specifically under Rule 39 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR) — could be validly exercised in the backdrop of extraordinary circumstances created by the pandemic. The petitioners contended that the one-time relaxation was fair, while the respondents argued it was retrospective, arbitrary, and in contravention of existing rules on promotions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Kerala High Court, in its judgment delivered on December 20, 2024, set aside the Tribunal’s rejection of the Government order and upheld the validity of the one-time exemption granted to certain employees for the purpose of promotion. The Court reasoned that the unprecedented situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic justified the Government’s relaxation of examination requirements. The benefit was conditioned on employees having attempted to take the relevant departmental tests during the pandemic years (2020–2021) and subsequently passing it in the next opportunity.

In other words, the Court recognized that the Government could lawfully exercise the power of relaxation to remedy inequities stemming from an extraordinary period when many normal activities, including examinations, were severely disrupted.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Several important precedents and rules shaped the High Court’s decision:

• Rule 28b(bb) of the KS & SSR: Ordinarily requires promotions to be determined by the qualifications that exist at the time a vacancy occurs, not at the time of actual promotion.
• Rule 39 of Part II, KS & SSR: Grants the Government power to relax rules in individual cases or certain classes of cases in the interest of justice and fairness, where strict application of the rules would result in undue hardship.
• T.C. Sreedharan Pillai and Others v. State of Kerala (1973 KLT 151): A Full Bench ruling that discussed the circumstances under which the Government may invoke its power of relaxation, emphasizing that such power is to be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases showing a clear, valid classification.
• James Thomas and Others v. Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala (1977 KLT 622 (F.B.)): Addressed retrospective relaxation and reaffirmed that promotions ordinarily depend on qualifications at the time of vacancy. However, it did not involve extraordinary circumstances such as a global pandemic.
• State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Andolan and Others [(2011) 7 SCC 639]: Cited for the doctrine of impossibility, highlighting that no person can be penalized for not fulfilling a requirement if it was realistically impossible to do so because of extreme circumstances.
• Showkath Ali v. State of Kerala (2008(1)KLJ 923) and Sherafuddin v. State Of Kerala (2004(2)KLT 731): Both cases confirmed the Government’s authority under Rule 39 to frame orders benefiting certain categories of employees where unusual or extraordinary facts warranted such relief.

B. Legal Reasoning

The High Court concluded that:

1. The COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly presented extraordinary and exceptional circumstances that disrupted normal functioning. Many employees were unable to prepare for or sit examinations, while in some cases, tests were not fully conducted.
2. Although Rule 28b(bb) sets the “ordinary” rule that promotions are tied to conditions existing at the time of the vacancy, the Court reasoned that the context of the phrase “ordinarily” displays that significant deviations may be permissible during extraordinary events such as the pandemic.
3. Invoking Rule 39 is permissible not purely for convenience or circumvention of rules but where the logical and equitable circumstances demand relief. The one-time exemption was tightly tailored — it applied only to those who had attempted the examination during the affected period, gave them a chance to retake and qualify, and limited the retroactive scope strictly to their promotions relative to qualified juniors.
4. The Full Bench rulings (e.g., T.C. Sreedharan Pillai) and other precedents do not override this scenario, given the unique and globally disruptive impact of a pandemic. In prior cases, the justification for relaxation did not involve a worldwide crisis.
5. The Government did consider the issue in detail, obtaining input from the Public Service Commission and observing that employees were disadvantaged through no fault of their own. The condition that they must still acquire test qualifications soon after the exemption further affirmed the limited and reasoned nature of this relaxation.

C. Impact

The ruling broadens practical understanding of how Rule 39 of the KS & SSR can be applied to address mass or systemic disadvantages arising from exceptional events (e.g., pandemics, disasters). The Court’s judgment clarifies that while service rules regarding promotions are typically unyielding, extreme external factors may allow a short-term relaxation if done systematically and with fair conditions:

• Employment Policies: This decision affirms that governments may enact limited exemptions from service rules when extraordinary public crises render specific statutory requirements unattainable.
• Future Challenges: The legal principle set forth could shape how authorities respond to large-scale disruptions. It underscores that “impossibility of performance” or mass disadvantage are legitimate justifications for targeted modifications of procedural rules.
• Balancing Rules and Equity: By allowing prospective promotions with a condition to pass future tests, the Court has demonstrated a balanced approach that preserves the integrity of examination-based promotions yet mitigates unfair setbacks caused by events beyond employees’ control.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 28b(bb) of KS & SSR: States that promotions should normally depend on an employee’s qualifications at the time a position becomes vacant. This ensures that only those already qualified can fill those vacancies.

Rule 39 of KS & SSR: Empowers the Government to relax, in exceptional scenarios, the rules concerning promotions where rigid adherence would lead to inequity or injustice. This “relaxation power” must be invoked cautiously and usually applies either to specific individuals or well-defined groups experiencing unique hardships.

Retrospective Relaxation: Usually rules apply going forward. However, a rule or order can apply “backwards” if a court or government body issues an exemption or clarification that takes effect for a period in the past. Courts generally disfavor retrospective relaxation unless there are very compelling reasons.

Doctrine of Impossibility: Courts have recognized that no person should be penalized under circumstances making performance of an obligation impossible. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employees could not properly prepare for or attend mandatory exams for reasons far beyond their control.

5. Conclusion

The Sajeev N., Senior Tax Assistant, v. Anumol P. S. judgment highlights the Kerala High Court’s emphasis on fairness and practicality in the application of civil service rules amidst unprecedented crises. While reaffirming the primacy of departmental test qualifications for promotions, the Court confirms that the Government may invoke its powers to adjust rigid requirements when an event such as a pandemic makes compliance nearly impossible.

By overturning the Tribunal’s order, the Court established a reassuring legal principle: in truly extraordinary situations — especially where the majority of employees are disadvantaged — the Government’s exercise of relaxation powers (under both Rule 39 and implicitly recognized by logic in Rule 28b(bb)) is valid if it addresses injustice in a narrowly tailored, well-imposed manner. This decision will likely be a guiding precedent whenever public servants face large-scale disruptions affecting their promotions and seniority.