Supreme Court clarifies teaching experience for Assistant Professor promotion: Dr. M. Dakshayani vs. State of Karnataka (20 April 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 20 April 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 341
Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.
Can prior teaching experience as a lecturer be counted towards promotion to Assistant Professor even if the experience was before obtaining a post-graduate degree? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning promotions in the Karnataka Health & Family Planning Services. The court clarified the interpretation of the relevant recruitment rules, specifically regarding the required teaching experience for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over the promotion of Respondent No. 2, Dr. Sacchidanand, to the post of Assistant Professor (Ophthalmology) and subsequently to Professor (Ophthalmology). The Appellant, Dr. M. Dakshayani, challenged these promotions, arguing that Respondent No. 2 did not meet the eligibility criteria. The core issue revolves around whether the teaching experience gained by Respondent No. 2 as a Lecturer before obtaining a Post-Graduate degree should be counted towards the required experience for promotion to Assistant Professor.

Dr. M. Dakshayani was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 11th December, 1987, while Dr. Sacchidanand was appointed as Assistant Surgeon on 10th September, 1991. On 20th May, 1992, Dr. Sacchidanand, along with 125 other Medical Officers, was posted as a Lecturer on deputation. This deputation came with the condition that it would not confer any right to change over as lecturing staff and would not be counted for seniority in the Medical Education Department. Dr. Dakshayani was appointed as a Lecturer (Ophthalmology) on 10th November, 1999, after changing her cadre. On 15th November, 1999, Dr. Sacchidanand was also permitted a change in cadre to the post of Lecturer. However, this order stated that she could not be absorbed as a Lecturer due to the lack of a Post-Graduate Degree and was permitted to pursue a Post-Graduate Degree. After completing her Post-Graduation, she was appointed as Lecturer on 18th May, 2001, and promoted to Assistant Professor on 6th June, 2001.

The Appellant challenged the promotion order of 6th June, 2001 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. While the matter was pending, Respondent No. 2 was further promoted to Professor (Ophthalmology) on 1st September, 2006. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, but the High Court reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the promotions of Respondent No. 2 to Assistant Professor and Professor. The Tribunal criticized the government for allowing the deputation and cadre change of Respondent No. 2 despite her not possessing a Post-Graduate Degree. The Tribunal directed the government to consider the Appellant for promotion from the date she became eligible. However, the High Court reversed the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the service rendered by Respondent No. 2 as a Lecturer for more than nine years, even before acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree, qualified her for promotion. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30] to support its view. This reversal by the High Court led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Karnataka Health & Family Planning Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967, which specify the qualifications for the posts of Lecturer, Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology. The qualifications for promotion to Assistant Professor from Lecturer are:

• ✓ A degree in Medicine from a recognized Indian University.
• ✓ A Post-Graduate qualification in Ophthalmology as specified in Annexure A or B.
• ✓ Teaching experience in Ophthalmology of not less than three years in a post of Lecturer or Lecturer-cum-Registrar or higher post.

The rules also specify the qualifications for promotion to Associate Professor and Reader, which include:

• ✓ A degree in Medicine from a recognized Indian University.
• ✓ A Post-Graduate qualification in Ophthalmology as specified in Annexure A or B.
• ✓ Teaching experience in Ophthalmology of not less than three years after acquiring the post-graduate qualification, of which not less than two years shall be in a post not lower in rank than that of an Assistant Associate Professor.

The key point of contention is whether the three years of teaching experience as a Lecturer must be after obtaining the Post-Graduate qualification. The rules for promotion to Associate Professor explicitly require three years of experience after acquiring the post-graduate qualification, while the rules for promotion to Assistant Professor do not specify this.

Arguments

The Appellant argued that the service rendered by Respondent No. 2 as a Lecturer before her change of cadre and before acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree should not be considered towards the required teaching experience. The Appellant contended that the rules require three years of teaching experience after obtaining a Post-Graduate Degree.

The Respondents contended that the rules for promotion to Assistant Professor only require three years of teaching experience as a Lecturer along with a Post-Graduate Degree, but do not specify that the experience must be after the degree. They relied on the judgment in A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30], where the Supreme Court interpreted the word “with” in a similar service rule to mean that the experience and the qualification can be concurrent. The Respondents also pointed out that Respondent No. 2 had worked as a Lecturer for more than nine years, fulfilling the experience requirement.

The Respondents also highlighted that due to a shortage of Lecturers in Government Medical Colleges between 1984 and 1999, the Government had posted Assistant Surgeons to work as Lecturers on other duty. Respondent No. 2 was among those posted as a Lecturer in this capacity, working for more than nine years.

The Tribunal had held that Respondent No. 2 was not eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer because she did not have a Post-Graduate qualification. The Respondents argued that this was incorrect because the qualification for appointment as a Lecturer by direct recruitment was only a Degree in Medicine, with preference given to candidates with a Post-Graduate qualification. The requirement of a Post-Graduate qualification was only for appointment by transfer.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondents lies in their reliance on the precedent set in A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30], which interpreted the word “with” in a similar rule to mean that the experience and the qualification can be concurrent. This argument was crucial in countering the appellant’s claim that the experience must be subsequent to obtaining the post-graduate degree.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the service rendered by Respondent No. 2 as Lecturer before she acquired a Post-Graduate Degree can be counted as qualifying service for promotion as Assistant Professor.

A sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether Respondent No. 2 was eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer without a Post-Graduate qualification.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

1. Shailendra Dania & Ors. v. S.P. Dubey & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 535] – Supreme Court of India. This case was referred to for a detailed consideration of the issue of counting prior service towards experience for promotion. The court held that earlier decisions on this issue were based on the interpretation of respective rules, the context of the scheme governing service conditions, and the facts of each case.
2. N. Suresh Nathan v. Union of India [1992 Supp (1) SCC 584] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited as one of the earlier decisions that were considered in the Shailendra Dania case.
3. M.B. Joshi v. Satish Kumar Pandey [1993 Supp (2) SCC 419] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited as one of the earlier decisions that were considered in the Shailendra Dania case.
4. D. Stephen Joseph v. Union of India [(1997) 4 SCC 753] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited as one of the earlier decisions that were considered in the Shailendra Dania case.
5. Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corp. of Delhi [(2000) 1 SCC 128] – Supreme Court of India. This case was considered where a similar rule requiring a degree and two years of professional experience was interpreted to not require the experience after obtaining the degree.
6. A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30] – Supreme Court of India. This case was relied upon by the High Court and the Supreme Court to interpret the word “with” in the service rules. The Supreme Court held that the word “with” means “accompanied by” and does not imply that the experience must be subsequent to the qualification.
7. Indian Airlines Limited v. S. Gopalakrishnan [(2001) 2 SCC 362] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited as one of the earlier decisions that were considered in the Shailendra Dania case.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• ✓ The Karnataka Health & Family Planning Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967, which govern the posts of Lecturer, Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology.

Authority Analysis Table:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the service rendered by Respondent No. 2 as a Lecturer before acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree could be counted towards the required teaching experience for promotion to Assistant Professor.

Treatment of Submissions:

Treatment of Authorities:

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the judgment in A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30]. The Court held that the word “with” in the rule does not imply that the experience must be subsequent to the qualification. The Court also referred to Shailendra Dania & Ors. v. S.P. Dubey & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 535], which discussed the interpretation of similar rules and the importance of the context of the service conditions. The Court distinguished the present case from other cases where the rules explicitly required experience after obtaining the qualification.

• ✓ A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30]: *The Court followed this authority*. The Supreme Court relied on the interpretation of the word “with” in this case to hold that the service rendered before post-graduation can be counted.
• ✓ Shailendra Dania & Ors. v. S.P . Dubey & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 535]: *The Court followed this authority*. The Court used this case to highlight that the interpretation of the rules depends on the context of the scheme governing service conditions.
• ✓ Anil Kumar Gupta v. Municipal Corp. of Delhi [(2000) 1 SCC 128]: *The Court followed this authority*. The Court used this case to show that a similar rule requiring a degree and two years of professional experience was interpreted to not require the experience after obtaining the degree.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a textual interpretation of the Karnataka Health & Family Planning Services (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1967. The Court emphasized that the rules for promotion to Assistant Professor only require three years of teaching experience as a Lecturer along with a Post-Graduate Degree, but do not explicitly state that the experience must be after the degree.

The Court also considered the precedent set in A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30], where the word “with” was interpreted to mean that the experience and qualification can be concurrent. This interpretation was crucial in the Court’s reasoning. Additionally, the Court noted that the rules for promotion to Associate Professor explicitly require experience after acquiring a Post-Graduate qualification, which was a conscious omission in the rules for Assistant Professor.

The Court also took into account the fact that Respondent No. 2 had worked as a Lecturer for more than nine years, and the administrative exigency that led to her being posted as a Lecturer on other duty due to a shortage of Lecturers in Government Medical Colleges.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of the rules, as the plain reading of the rules and the precedent in A.K. Raghumani Singh were sufficient to resolve the issue. The Court’s reasoning was based on a literal interpretation of the rules and relied on the established legal principle that if the rules do not explicitly state that experience must be after a qualification, it can be considered concurrent.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the interpretation of the rules and the application of the precedent. The judgment is clear and accessible, explaining the reasoning in simple terms.

The Court stated the following reasons for its decision:

• ✓ The rules for promotion to Assistant Professor do not explicitly require three years of teaching experience after acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree.
• ✓ The word “with” as interpreted in A.K. Raghumani Singh means that the experience and qualification can be concurrent.
• ✓ The rules for promotion to Associate Professor explicitly require experience after acquiring a Post-Graduate qualification, which was a conscious omission in the rules for Assistant Professor.
• ✓ Respondent No. 2 had worked as a Lecturer for more than nine years.
• ✓ Respondent No. 2 was eligible to be appointed as a Lecturer by transfer after acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree.

The Court also quoted the following from the judgment:

“A plain reading of the qualification prescribed for promotion as Assistant Professor would make it clear that three years teaching experience as Lecturer along with a Post-Graduation Degree is sufficient. There is no requirement of three years experience after a person acquires Post-Graduation Degree.”

“A conscious omission of the condition of experience after acquiring Post-Graduate Degree in the qualifications for Assistant Professor supports our view that three years experience as a Lecturer is sufficient. It need not be after completion of Post-Graduation.”

“It was not necessary that Respondent No.2 should have possessed a Post-Graduation qualification for working as a Lecturer on other duty as the qualification for appointment as a Lecturer by direct recruitment was only Graduation.”

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of this judgment are:

• ✓ Teaching experience gained as a Lecturer before acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree can be counted towards the eligibility criteria for promotion to Assistant Professor, provided the relevant service rules do not explicitly state that the experience must be after obtaining the degree.
• ✓ The interpretation of service rules should be based on a plain reading of the text, and the word “with” does not necessarily imply that the experience must be subsequent to the qualification.
• ✓ The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of service rules, which will be helpful in future cases involving similar issues.

This judgment could impact future cases by setting a precedent for the interpretation of service rules where the requirement of experience is not explicitly stated to be after the acquisition of a certain qualification. It reinforces the principle that if the rules do not specify that the experience must be after a qualification, it can be considered concurrent.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, which had reversed the Tribunal’s order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that teaching experience gained as a Lecturer before acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree can be counted towards the eligibility criteria for promotion to Assistant Professor, provided the relevant service rules do not explicitly state that the experience must be after obtaining the degree. The judgment clarifies that the word “with” in the service rules does not necessarily imply that the experience must be subsequent to the qualification. This interpretation is based on the precedent set in A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30].

There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment provides a clearer understanding of how service rules should be interpreted. It reinforces the principle that if the rules do not explicitly state that the experience must be after a qualification, it can be considered concurrent.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision, clarifying that the teaching experience gained as a Lecturer before acquiring a Post-Graduate Degree can be counted towards the eligibility criteria for promotion to Assistant Professor. The Court emphasized that the relevant service rules did not explicitly state that the experience must be after obtaining the degree and relied on the precedent set in A.K. Raghumani Singh & Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Nath & Ors. [(2000) 4 SCC 30] for its interpretation.