Case Name: Dr.Sharmad Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. with Dr.Sheela T.A. and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case Number: Civil appeal No. 13422 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No. 13423 of 2024
Date: January 10, 2025
Quorum: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
FACTS OF THE CASE
This dispute related to a promotion between Dr. Sharmad and Dr. Jyothish, both being faculty members of the Medical Education Service of the Kerala Health Department. The point of contention was centered around Dr. Sharmad’s promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Neurosurgery, which was given on February 6, 2013. Upon granting the promotion, it was challenged by Dr. Jyothish, on the ground that Dr. Sharmad had not completed the required five years of teaching experience as an Assistant Professor after securing the M.Ch. degree.
The original application moved for the Kerala Administrative Tribunal by Dr. Jyothish was rejected, but the Kerala High Court set aside the same and declared the promotion void and directed to review the promotion process. An appeal was made by Dr. Sharmad before the Supreme Court of India challenging the decision of the High Court.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
1.Whether the five years of teaching experience for promotion to Associate Professor should be counted from the obtaining of the M.Ch. degree?
2.Whether the promotion of Dr. Sharmad to the post of Associate Professor was under the recruitment rules laid down in G.O.s dated April 07, 2008, and December 14, 2009?
3.Whether the decision passed by the High Court cancelling the promotion was sustainable in law?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- G.O. dated 7 April, 2008: Governs qualification and method of appointment of faculties within Kerala Medical Education Services.
- G.O. dated 14 December: Specifies revised eligibility criteria for promotion including those relating to teaching experience.
- Rules 10 and 28, Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (
- KS and SSR): Sets out general guidelines on recruitment along with experience qualifications.
- Article 309 of the Constitution of India: Empowers the state to frame rules for recruitment and conditions of service.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Appellant:
Dr. Sharmad contended that G.O. dated 7 April 2008, ruling for promotions, does not expressly mention that the five years of teaching experience have to be completed after obtaining the M.Ch. He stated that he could be legitimately promoted because he possessed the experience required by this G.O.
Also, the High Court fell into error accepting Rule 10(b) of KS and SSR by saying it didn’t apply in light of the purposes of G.O. governing medical education services. It was a conscious and deliberate omission of post-M.Ch. experience in the teaching cadre; therefore, it cannot be applied to his case.
Arguments by the Respondent:
Dr. Jyothish argued for the interpretation that five years of teaching experience has to be after obtaining the M.Ch. He further argued that since this really is consistent with the principle established in the appointment rules, it will help in seeing through whatever is supposed to be academic standards.
He noted that the G.O. dated 14 December, 2009, specified the conditions for eligibility wherein the teaching experience for promoting an Associate Professor should come post-M.Ch. He contended that due consideration was not given to the promotion given to Dr. Sharmad, as it was against the eligibility norms.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court stated that there existed several conflicting interpretations of various G.O.s and also the applications of KS and SSR rules. The Court pointed out that five years teaching experience required for promotion to Associate Professor under G.O. dated April 7, 2008, was not explained specifically as having to be post-M.Ch.-degree experience. This stipulation was specifically absent, in view of the said G.O. having very clear mention of post-graduate good-guarding experience for administrative cadre posts.
The Court laid emphasis on Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR as general provisions and having nothing to do with the specific rules governing medical education services. While relying upon Rule 10(ab), the High Court brushed aside that special rules exist to govern particular services like medical education in contradistinction to general service rules. Such an interpretation by the High Court has come to be the principal mistake.
Moreover, the Court specified that the G.O. dated December 14, 2009, primarily had to do with revised pay scales and such prospectively defined promotions could not alter the criteria for promotions clarified by earlier G.O.-2008. It reiterated the principle that special rules, like the 2008 G.O., cover, override, and supersede relatively conflicting general rules.
The expressio unius est exclusio alterius doctrine was applied. The Court came to the conclusion, therefore, that there was a relation between the inclusion of post-graduate degree experience for administrative posts and the exclusion for teaching posts and that somehow a conscious legislative decision had been made. It pointed out that if the Government had wanted it to be mandatory for all teaching cadre posts, it could have said so quite clearly.
It was further held by the Court that by said date, Dr. Sharmad had over five years of physical teaching experience as an assistant professor, which satisfied the statutory requirements under the terms of the Government Order of 2008. The Court was therefore wrong to rely on Rule 28(b)(1A) of the KS and SSR, which only applies when no qualified candidates are available.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court overruled the Kerala High Court order and reinstated the orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, granting Dr. Sharmad the status of Associate Professor. It ruled that the recruitment rules did not compel five years of teaching experience post-M.Ch., and Dr. Sharmad fell within the ambit of eligibility under G.O., dated April 7, 2008.
The court reiterated that recruitment rules and executive orders, being policy decisions, must be implemented as written, unless they are inherently ambiguous or contradictory to constitutional provisions.
CONCLUSION
This judgment outlines the way the recruitment rules should be interpreted, reflecting the intent of the legislation and the plain language of the rules. The judgment stressed that special rules for certain services must take precedence over the general rules. The court’s restoration of Dr. Sharmad’s promotion reaffirms the sanctity of executive orders and the need for clarity in the processes followed by the administration, setting a precedent for all future disputes in medical education services.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SAGORIKA MUKHERJEE
