Experience or Qualification: A Conundrum in Kerala Medical Service Promotions

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 INSC 70. [PDF]

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated a complex case concerning promotions within the Kerala Medical Education Service. The dispute centered on the interpretation of experience requirements for faculty positions, specifically whether the required years of experience must be obtained after acquiring a postgraduate degree.

This case arose from a conflict between two doctors, Dr. Sharmad and Dr. Jyothish, regarding the validity of Dr. Sharmad’s promotion to Associate Professor. The contention was whether the stipulated five years of physical teaching experience as an Assistant Professor should be counted before or after acquiring a postgraduate degree, namely an M.Ch degree in neurosurgery.

The Court's decision hinged on a nuanced interpretation of a Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008, which laid down the qualifications and method of appointment for faculty in the Medical Education Service. The absence of formal rules under Article 309 of the Constitution made the G.O. the primary source of guidance in this matter.

The Supreme Court's judgment provides significant insight into the interpretation of service rules and executive orders, particularly in the absence of formal rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. It emphasizes the importance of a literal interpretation of the existing government orders/executive orders and gives importance to specific government orders over general rules.

Case Summary

1. Dr. Sharmad was appointed as Lecturer in 1999 (with MBBS) and again in 2005 with an M.Ch degree. He was promoted to Assistant Professor in 2007 and then to Associate Professor on 06th February, 2013.
2. Dr. Jyothish was promoted to Assistant Professor in 2008 and acquired his M.Ch degree in 2008. He argued that Dr. Sharmad's promotion to Associate Professor was illegal because he did not have 5 years of experience as an Assistant Professor after acquiring his M.Ch. degree.
3. The Kerala High Court sided with Dr. Jyothish, stating that the five years’ experience should be after acquiring the M.Ch degree. The High Court set aside the promotion of Dr. Sharmad.
4. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision. It held that the Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008, which governed the promotion, did not require five years of experience as Assistant Professor after acquiring the postgraduate M.Ch. degree for the teaching cadre. The Supreme Court stated that if the State intended for the experience to be post M.Ch. degree, it would have written it in the G.O. like it did for the administrative cadre.
5. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Dr. Sharmad, thereby validating his promotion. A similar appeal by Dr. Sheela and others regarding the same issue was also allowed. Dr. R. Jayaprakash who had made a similar claim as Dr. Jyothish also had his case dismissed.

Study guide

1. Understand the timeline of events: Review the timeline of promotions and appointments for both Dr. Sharmad and Dr. Jyothish to comprehend the sequence of events leading to the dispute.
2. Identify the key players: Note the roles of the individuals involved, including Dr. Sharmad, Dr. Jyothish, the State of Kerala, and the judges of the Supreme Court. The roles of Dr. R. Jayaprakash, Dr. Sheela and the various counsel involved is important.
3. Examine the Government Orders: Pay close attention to the Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008, as it forms the basis of the dispute. Understand the distinction in experience requirements between the administrative and teaching cadres. Note, that G.O dated 14th December, 2009, was not used to form a judgement.
4. Analyze the arguments: Study the arguments presented by both Dr. Sharmad and Dr. Jyothish and the State of Kerala. Understand Dr. Jyothish’s reliance on Rule 10(ab) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR) and Dr. Sharmad’s reliance on a plain reading of the G.O..
5. Understand legal principles: Focus on the legal maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" and how it was applied in the court's reasoning. Understand its meaning: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
6. Understand the literal interpretation: The court emphasized the importance of a plain and literal interpretation of the G.O, and how that differs from the interpretation of KS and SSR. The court looked at the intention of the rule framer.
7. Distinguish precedents: Understand how the Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous rulings like Shesharao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya s/o Govindrao Karale. The court stated that the ‘normal’ interpretation, that experience is after the qualification, can be altered if the context demands and the particular G.O. is evidence of such an altered context.
8. Review the Supreme Court's Reasoning: Understand the Supreme Court's reasoning in overturning the High Court's decision, focusing on why the court considered the G.O. to be the sole operative recruitment rule.
9. Impact of Judgment: Understand that the judgment provides clarity on the eligibility criteria for promotions in the Kerala Medical Education Service, specifically regarding the timing of experience.
10. Implication of the lack of formal rules: The ruling emphasizes that the courts will be guided by executive orders when rules framed under Article 309 are not in place.

Rationale

1. The Supreme Court emphasized that a plain reading of the G.O. dated 07th April, 2008, does not stipulate that the 5 years’ experience as Assistant Professor needs to be after acquiring the M.Ch degree for the teaching cadre.
2. The Court noted that, for administrative posts, the G.O. explicitly mentioned that the experience should be “after acquiring postgraduate degree,” but this phrase was absent for teaching posts. The court specifically noted, "If, indeed, it were the intention of the executive that aspirants for the said post of Associate Professor, or, for that matter, for the post of Professor were required to have physical teaching experience in the feeder posts for specified number of years “after acquiring postgraduate degree”, it defies reason as to why the same qualification was not included for appointments on promotion to posts borne in Branch – II i.e. Teaching Cadre but included for the posts borne in Branch – I i.e. Administrative Cadre.”.
3. The Court held that Rule 10(ab) of the KS and SSR was not applicable in this case because the G.O. dated 07th April, 2008, was a special rule that superseded all existing rules and that 10(ab) has the clause “unless otherwise specified”. The court said “the distinction in the qualifications for posts in Branch-I and Branch-II in G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 would constitute the specification which is excluded from the purview of Rule 10(ab) and such rule had / has no application to the promotional appointment in question.”.
4. The legal maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" was applied to interpret the G.O. Since the phrase "after acquiring postgraduate degree" was specifically included for administrative posts but not for teaching posts, the court concluded that it was not intended to be a requirement for the teaching cadre. The court held that “the exclusion of the words ‘after acquiring postgraduate degree’ is deliberate and conscious and the contentions advanced by Mr. Chitambaresh, to the contrary, do not commend acceptance.”.
5. The court also stated that teaching positions require specific experience in their field, and the need to specify that experience after postgraduate degree is more relevant in administrative roles as compared to teaching roles.
6. The Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous rulings stating that the cited case referred to “normal” conditions but did not apply where context dictates otherwise. Since the G.O. had specified post-qualification experience for administrative posts, it was impliedly not necessary for teaching posts.
7. The Court stated that Rule 28 (b) (1A) did not apply in this case as Dr. Sharmad was qualified for the position and the rule only applied when no qualified candidate was available.

FAQ

Q.1. What was the primary legal issue in the Dr. Sharmad case?

Answer: The central issue was whether the five years of physical teaching experience as an Assistant Professor required for promotion to Associate Professor had to be after acquiring a postgraduate degree (M.Ch) or whether prior experience also counted.

Q.2. What is the significance of the Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008?

Answer: This G.O. was crucial as it outlined the qualifications and method of appointment for faculty in the Medical Education Service, superseding all previous rules. It distinguished between Administrative (Branch I) and Teaching Cadres (Branch II) with different experience requirements.

Q.3. How did the High Court rule on Dr. Sharmad’s promotion?

Answer: The Kerala High Court ruled against Dr. Sharmad’s promotion, stating that he lacked the five years of teaching experience as Assistant Professor after acquiring his M.Ch degree, and that the experience should be counted as such according to the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR).

Q.4. On what grounds did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court's decision?

Answer: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision based on a literal reading of the G.O. dated 07th April, 2008, stating that it did not specify that the five years of experience had to be after the M.Ch. degree for teaching positions. It also noted that specific rules in the G.O. took precedence over general rules such as the KS and SSR.

Q.5. What is the legal maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," and how was it used in this case?

Answer: This maxim means "the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another". The Supreme Court applied this maxim, noting that since the G.O. specifically mentioned “after acquiring postgraduate degree” for administrative posts but not for teaching posts, the omission was intentional, indicating that post-PG experience was not a requirement for teaching positions.

Q.6. What was the relevance of Rule 10(ab) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR) in this case?

Answer: The Supreme Court held that Rule 10(ab) of the KS and SSR was not applicable to this case because the G.O. was a special rule that specified its own criteria. Moreover, 10(ab) has the clause "unless otherwise specified," which means that the rule does not apply when a special rule says something different.

Q.7. What did the Supreme Court mean by ‘literal interpretation’ in this judgment?

Answer: The court emphasized the importance of interpreting the government order based on its plain and ordinary meaning, without adding or subtracting words from the text. The court did not read implied stipulations into the G.O.

Q.8. How did the Supreme Court distinguish this case from previous rulings like Shesharao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya s/o Govindrao Karale?

Answer: The Supreme Court stated that the cited case referred to "normal" conditions, but did not apply where context dictated otherwise. The court noted the present G.O specified that experience must be after qualification for administrative posts, and therefore, it was impliedly not necessary for teaching posts.

Q.9. What is the implication of this case on the interpretation of service rules?

Answer: This judgment emphasizes that courts will follow executive orders strictly when formal rules under Article 309 of the Constitution are not in place, and that specific rules take precedence over general rules. It underscores the need for clarity in drafting rules and orders and highlights the importance of a plain and literal reading of the rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala clarifies the process of interpreting promotion rules in the absence of formal rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. The court's reliance on the literal interpretation of the executive order, the Government Order (G.O.) dated 07th April, 2008, establishes a clear precedent for similar cases in the Kerala Medical Education Service. The decision emphasizes the importance of well-defined service rules and the need for careful drafting to avoid ambiguities, which can lead to disputes. The court's application of the "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" maxim also provides a valuable lesson in interpreting administrative rules and orders. The judgment validates Dr. Sharmad’s promotion and underscores the significance of specific executive orders over general rules in determining eligibility for promotions.