Supreme Court Clarifies Experience Requirements for Medical Faculty Promotions in Kerala: Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala (2025) INSC 70

Date of the Judgment: January 10, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 70
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can prior teaching experience before obtaining a super-speciality degree be counted towards promotion eligibility for medical faculty? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning promotions within Kerala’s Medical Education Service. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of experience requirements for promotions to the post of Associate Professor, specifically focusing on whether teaching experience must be acquired *after* obtaining a postgraduate degree. The bench comprised Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, with the judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

This case involves two appeals concerning promotions to the post of Associate Professor in the Medical Education Service, Health and Family Welfare Department, Kerala. The core dispute revolves around whether the required teaching experience for promotion should be calculated from the date of acquiring a postgraduate degree or from the date of joining the post of Assistant Professor. Dr. Sharmad was promoted to Associate Professor on February 6, 2013, while Dr. Jyothish, who was also vying for the same position, challenged this promotion, arguing that Dr. Sharmad did not have the requisite experience. The High Court of Kerala sided with Dr. Jyothish, setting aside Dr. Sharmad’s promotion. The Supreme Court is now hearing Dr. Sharmad’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.

Similarly, in the second case, the High Court modified the order of the Tribunal regarding the promotion of a Senior Lecturer to Assistant Professor in Paediatrics. This case also concerned whether the teaching experience had to be acquired after the post-graduate qualification.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Dr. Jyothish initially filed an original application before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, challenging Dr. Sharmad’s promotion. The Tribunal dismissed his application. However, the High Court of Kerala overturned the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that Dr. Sharmad did not meet the required experience criteria. The High Court emphasized that the five years of teaching experience as an Assistant Professor should be after acquiring the M.Ch degree. The High Court also set aside the promotion of Dr. Sharmad and directed the authorities to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee meeting to fill the post.

In the second case, the Tribunal held that experience gained only after acquiring PG qualification would count. The High Court modified the order of the Tribunal.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is based on Government Order (G.O.) dated April 7, 2008, which specifies the qualifications and method of appointment for faculty under the Medical Education Services in Kerala. This G.O. was issued in supersession of all existing rules and orders. It categorizes faculty positions into Branch I (Administrative Cadre) and Branch II (Teaching Cadre). The dispute centers on the interpretation of experience requirements for promotion to Associate Professor in the Teaching Cadre.

The relevant provisions of the G.O. state that for the post of Associate Professor, an aspirant must have “Five years Physical Teaching experience as Assistant Professor.” Unlike the criteria for administrative posts, the G.O. does not explicitly state that this experience must be *after* acquiring a postgraduate degree.

The court also considered the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS and SSR), particularly Rules 10 and 28. Rule 10(a)(i) states that educational qualifications for a post shall be as specified in the Special Rules or executive orders of the Government. Rule 10(ab) states that unless otherwise specified, the experience should be gained after acquiring the basic qualification for the post.

The court also considered G.O. dated 14th December, 2009, which dealt with the pay and allowances of the members of the Kerala Medical Education Service. This G.O. provided revised pay scales for Associate Professors and stated that incumbent Assistant Professors with five years of teaching experience, or two years for teachers with super-speciality degrees after acquiring the super-speciality degree, could be promoted.

Arguments

Arguments of Dr. Jyothish:

• Dr. Jyothish argued that despite the absence of explicit wording in G.O. dated April 7, 2008, the requirement of 5 years of teaching experience as an Assistant Professor should be interpreted as 5 years of experience *after* acquiring the postgraduate degree (M.Ch).
• He relied on Rules 10 and 28 of the KS and SSR to support his claim that Dr. Sharmad did not possess the requisite experience and was illegally promoted.
• He contended that the experience must be subsequent to the acquisition of the qualification.

Arguments of Dr. Sharmad:

• Dr. Sharmad argued that G.O. dated April 7, 2008, does not require 5 years of physical teaching experience *after* acquiring the M.Ch degree for promotion to Associate Professor.
• He highlighted that the experience criteria for administrative posts specifically mention “after acquiring postgraduate degree,” which is absent for teaching posts.
• He argued that G.O. dated 14th December, 2009, supported his claim that he satisfied the eligibility criteria.

Arguments of the State of Kerala:

• The State defended Dr. Sharmad’s promotion, stating that G.O. dated 14th December, 2009, superseded G.O. dated April 7, 2008, and that Dr. Sharmad met the eligibility criteria under the former.
• They argued that the G.O. of 2008 did not specify that the experience must be after acquiring the postgraduate degree.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order granting promotion to Dr. Sharmad to the post of Assistant Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Education Service, Health and Family Welfare Department, Kerala on 06th February, 2013.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Shesharao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya s/o Govindrao Karale [1991 Supp (1) SCC 367]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the context of the present case demands that the experience need not be after the acquisition of the post-graduate degree.
• Arun Kumar Agarwal (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [1991 Supp (1) SCC 287]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that preference can be given only when other qualifications are equal. In this case, Dr. Jyothish did not have the required experience.
• Indian Airlines Ltd. v. S Gopalakrishnan [2001 (2) SCC 362]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the requirements in this case are dissimilar to the recruitment rules governing promotional appointments under consideration.
• The decisions of the High Court in Sirajudheen v. Public Service Commission [1999 (1) LLN 408], Rabi v. State of Kerala [2007 SCC OnLine Ker 418] and A. Basheer v. Saiful Islam A. [2014 SCC OnLine Ker 18469] were distinguished as they pertained to different departments and different rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the literal interpretation of G.O. dated 07th April, 2008. The Court noted the explicit inclusion of the phrase “after acquiring postgraduate degree” in the experience criteria for administrative posts, which was conspicuously absent for teaching posts. This distinction was seen as deliberate, indicating that the experience for teaching positions did not necessarily need to be acquired after obtaining a postgraduate degree. The Court also emphasized that Rule 10(ab) of the KS and SSR, which generally requires experience to be gained after acquiring the basic qualification, is subject to the phrase “unless otherwise specified,” and that the G.O. of 2008 constituted such a specification.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the experience should be subsequent to the acquisition of the qualification. However, it rejected this argument, noting that the G.O. dated 07th April, 2008, did not specify that the experience must be after acquiring the postgraduate degree. The Court also rejected the argument that Rule 10(ab) of the KS and SSR applies to the present case. The court also held that Rule 28(b)(1A) of the KS and SSR is not applicable as Dr. Sharmad was eligible for promotion. The court also rejected the argument that the G.O. dated 14th December, 2009, applies to the present case.

The Court emphasized the principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*, meaning that the explicit mention of “after acquiring postgraduate degree” for administrative posts implies its exclusion for teaching posts.

The court also considered the argument that the posts in the Administrative cadre have different responsibilities from those in the Teaching cadre. However, the court held that this argument does not hold water since the insistence of physical teaching experience with a particular postgraduate or super speciality degree would seem to be more required and demanding for appointment on posts in the Teaching Cadre rather than those in the Administrative Cadre.

The Supreme Court stated, *“A plain and literal reading does not lead to the conclusion that 5 years’ experience of physical teaching as an Assistant Professor after acquiring M. Ch. degree is one of the requisite qualifications.”*

The Supreme Court also stated, *“In our reading, 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.”*

The Supreme Court also stated, *“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.”*

Key Takeaways

• For promotions to Associate Professor in the Medical Education Service of Kerala, teaching experience need not necessarily be acquired after obtaining a postgraduate degree, unless specifically stated in the relevant rules or orders.
• The principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius* can be applied in interpreting government orders and rules.
• General rules like the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR) will not apply if there are specific rules or executive orders governing the matter.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restored the judgment and order of the Tribunal. The original application of Dr. Jyothish was dismissed.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court has clarified that the experience for promotion to Associate Professor in the Medical Education Service of Kerala need not be after acquiring the post-graduate degree, unless explicitly mentioned in the rules. This judgment interprets the G.O. dated 07th April, 2008 and clarifies the position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Dr. Sharmad vs. State of Kerala* clarifies that for promotions to Associate Professor in Kerala’s Medical Education Service, the required teaching experience does not necessarily need to be gained after acquiring a postgraduate degree, unless explicitly specified. The Court emphasized a literal interpretation of the relevant Government Order and the principle of *expressio unius est exclusio alterius*. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of experience requirements for promotions in the absence of specific rules, setting a precedent for similar cases.