A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others, Civil Appeal No. 13422 of 2024 (decided 10 Jan 2025) examines whether a promotional appointment to Associate Professor, Department of Neurosurgery was valid where the candidate had completed the requisite physical teaching experience in the feeder post but had not completed five years after acquiring the M.Ch degree. The dispute turns on interpretation of the executive Recruitment Rules contained in G.O. dated 07.04.2008 (which governed recruitment in Branch-I Administrative Cadre and Branch-II Teaching Cadre) and whether the general qualification-experience rule in Rule 10(ab), Part II, Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR) which ordinarily requires experience after acquisition of the basic qualification applies to promotional appointments under the special executive order.

The Supreme Court held that a plain reading of the G.O. shows the executive deliberately required post-qualification experience in Branch-I posts but omitted those words for Branch-II, thereby implying exclusion (expressio unius). For that reason and because the G.O. of 07.04.2008 was a special rule superseding general rules, the appellant’s promotion (made on 06.02.2013) was lawful: he had requisite five years physical teaching experience as Assistant Professor on the date vacancy arose (13.11.2012). The High Court’s interference based on Rule 28(b)(1A) and Rule 10(ab) was therefore set aside; the Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing the challenge was restored. The judgment clarifies interplay between special executive recruitment orders and general service rules; it confirms that ordinary presumption that experience means post-qualification experience may yield to clear express specification, particularly for promotions.

Keywords: Promotional appointment; Post-qualification experience; Associate Professor; G.O. 07.04.2008; Rule 10(ab) KS & SSR.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arose from promotion to Associate Professor (Neurosurgery) where a vacancy occurred on 13.11.2012. Recruitment for Medical Education Service was governed by G.O. dated 07.04.2008 issued by the Kerala Government in supersession of earlier orders. The G.O. divided posts into Branch-I (Administrative) and Branch-II (Teaching) and specified educational qualification (M.Ch or DNB) and differing experience requirements. For teaching posts the column of experience listed numerical requirements (e.g., Five years physical teaching experience as Assistant Professor for Associate Professor) but did not append the phrase “after acquiring postgraduate degree” as it expressly did for certain Branch-I administrative posts. The appellant, Dr. Sharmad, had obtained M.Ch on 31.07.2008, was promoted as Assistant Professor on 11.01.2007 and had accumulated more than five years of physical teaching experience by the vacancy date; promotion to Associate Professor was made on 06.02.2013.

An aggrieved colleague, Dr. Jyothish, challenged the promotion contending that the five-year experience requirement had to be computed after acquiring the M.Ch, relying on Rule 10(ab), Part II KS & SSR and noting the purposive presumption that experience generally means post-qualification service. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal dismissed the challenge; the High Court reversed, holding post-qualification experience was necessary and setting aside promotion. The Supreme Court gravitated to textual and contextual interpretation of the G.O., Rule 10 and the maxim expressio unius, concluding that the G.O. intentionally omitted post-qualification wording for teaching posts and thus those posts did not require experience posterior to the degree.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Dr. Sharmad Lecturer (appointed 22.10.1999), promoted Assistant Professor 11.01.2007; acquired M.Ch 31.07.2008. Vacancy for Associate Professor arose 13.11.2012. The recruitment regime: G.O. 07.04.2008 listing eligibility M.Ch/DNB and specified physical teaching experience for each post (Professor: one year as Associate Professor; Associate Professor: five years as Assistant Professor; Assistant Professor: three years as Lecturer/Senior Lecturer). The G.O. expressly required experience after acquiring postgraduate degree only in Branch-I posts (Director / Joint Director / Principals) but not in Branch-II. Dr. Jyothish (promoted Assistant Professor 22.07.2008) alleged that five years’ experience must be computed after acquiring M.Ch, which would disqualify Dr. Sharmad because his five years as Assistant Professor after M.Ch would complete only on 30.07.2013. The Tribunal dismissed OA; High Court allowed it, treating Rule 10(ab) as applicable and relying on note to Rule 28(b)(1A); Supreme Court heard appeals and analyzed textual import and statutory interplay.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the five years physical teaching experience as Assistant Professor required for promotion to Associate Professor must be gained after acquiring the M.Ch / postgraduate degree?
ii. Whether Rule 10(ab), Part II, KS & SSR (experience to be post-qualification unless otherwise specified) applies to promotional appointments governed by the G.O. dated 07.04.2008?
iii. Whether the High Court rightly set aside the promotion relying on Rule 28(b)(1A) and general rules when a special executive order was in force?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellant submitted that:
i. G.O. 07.04.2008 is the governing recruitment rule (special rule) and its plain language does not mandate experience after acquisition of qualification for teaching cadre posts.
ii. The appellant possessed the specified five years physical teaching experience as Assistant Professor on the date vacancy occurred (13.11.2012); thus he was eligible.
iii. Rule 10(ab) and other general KS & SSR provisions cannot supersede a special executive order which consciously omitted post-qualification wording for Branch-II posts.
iv. Reliance on G.O. 14.12.2009 by respondents is unnecessary; even without it the 2008 G.O. suffices to validate the promotion.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for respondent submitted that:
i. The normal and legally established rule is that experience must be computed after acquiring the prescribed qualification; Rule 10(ab) embodies that principle.
ii. High Court correctly held that absence of explicit contrary wording in the G.O. did not negate the ordinary meaning of experience as post-qualification service.
iii. Note to Rule 28(b)(1A) could be invoked where promotion timing relative to qualification acquisition matters.
iv. G.O. 14.12.2009 (pay/placement order) supports post-PG computation for superspeciality holders and should have been considered.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court restored the Tribunal and allowed the appeal. The judgment proceeded by textual and contextual construction: it emphasized that G.O. 07.04.2008 was issued in supersession of prior rules and was a special rule for Medical Education Service; therefore general KS & SSR provisions (including Rule 10(ab)) apply only unless the special rule specifies otherwise. The Court performed a close reading: Branch-I posts expressly stated experience “after acquiring postgraduate degree”; Branch-II posts did not.

Applying the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court inferred deliberate exclusion of post-qualification wording for teaching posts. The Court also observed jurisprudence (e.g., Shesharao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya) recognizes the normal presumption that experience is post-qualification but qualifies it in promotions and where the rules indicate otherwise. The Court held that on 13.11.2012 the appellant had the requisite physical teaching experience as Assistant Professor and therefore was eligible; Rule 28(b)(1A) note was inapplicable because qualified candidates existed. Reliance on G.O. 14.12.2009 by respondents was unnecessary to decide legality. The High Court’s interference was therefore unwarranted and set aside; Tribunal’s dismissal of the OA was restored.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The dispositive ratio is that where a special executive recruitment order (here G.O. 07.04.2008) governs promotional appointments and deliberately uses or omits the phrase “after acquiring postgraduate degree” in different branches, the omission is intentional and excludes the general presumption under Rule 10(ab) that experience must be post-qualification. Thus, a plain reading of the special rule controls and a candidate who had requisite physical teaching experience on the vacancy date is eligible for promotion even if some of that experience predates acquisition of the postgraduate degree.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court noted broadly that normally experience is construed as post-qualification but accepted exceptions for promotional contexts and where rule-framers manifest different intent. It also observed that preference cases (e.g., Arun Kumar Agarwal) are distinguishable where experience deficits exist; and that general service rules cannot be read to nullify a special rule’s express distinctions. These observations, while persuasive, are auxiliary to the holding.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Where recruitment is governed by a special executive order, courts must give primacy to its plain language and structure.
ii. Expressio unius may be invoked where a special rule includes a phrase for one category but omits it for another — omission may indicate deliberate exclusion.
iii. For promotional appointments the context may justify treating experience differently from initial appointments; interpretation must be fact-sensitive.
iv. General service rules (KS & SSR) apply only unless otherwise specified by special rules; Rule 10(ab)’s import is limited when special rules govern.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reaffirms classical principles of statutory interpretation textual primacy, specificity over generality, and the maxim expressio unius in the service law context. Practically, it protects promotions made under a special recruitment scheme where the administrative frame sets eligibility distinct from general service rules. The ruling also cautions courts against mechanically importing general presumptions (post-qualification computation of experience) into special recruitment regimes without close textual analysis. For administrative authorities, the judgment underscores the need for clarity when drafting recruitment orders: inclusion or exclusion of temporal qualifiers like “after acquiring postgraduate degree” has decisive legal effect.

For candidates and service boards, the case clarifies that eligibility for promotion must be assessed with reference to the governing special rule on the date of vacancy, not by an across-the-board assumption of post-qualification reckoning. The Court’s approach is jurisprudentially conservative and administratively pragmatic, balancing fair competition principles with deference to clear governmental specifications.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 13422 of 2024, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 414 : 2025 INSC 70.

2. Shesharao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya s/o Govindrao Karale, [1990] Supp. 1 SCR 521 : (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 367. (as cited in judgment).

3. Arun Kumar Agarwal (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, [1991] 2 SCR 491 : (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 287. (as cited)

4. Indian Airlines Ltd. v. S. Gopalakrishnan, [2000] Supp. 5 SCR 548 : (2001) 2 SCC 362. (as cited)

b. Important Statutes / Rules Referred

1. Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (Part II — Rule 10(a)(i), Rule 10(ab), Rule 28(b)(1A)).

2. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

3. Government Order dated 07.04.2008 (Recruitment rules for Kerala Medical Education Service — Branch I & II).

4. Government Order dated 14.12.2009 (pay and related provisions).