DR. SHARMAD versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 414 · Decided: 09-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 414 : 2025 INSC 70
Dr. Sharmad 
v. 
State of Kerala and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 13422 of 2024)
10 January 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order 
granting promotion to the appellant to the post of Associate 
Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Medical Education Service, 
Health and Family Welfare Department, Kerala on 06.02.2013.
Headnotes†
Service Law – Promotional appointment – Post-qualification 
experience, when not required – Vacancy for the post of 
Associate Professor arose on 13.11.2012 – Appellant had 
acquired M.Ch degree on 31.07.2008 – Completed 5 years 
as Assistant Professor on 30.07.2013 (was promoted as 
Assistant Professor on 11.01.2007) – In the meanwhile, 
he was Promoted as Associate Professor on 06.02.2013 – 
Challenged by respondent no.3, application dismissed by 
Kerala Administrative Tribunal – High Court set aside the 
promotion of the appellant to the post of Associate Professor 
holding that he lacked 5 years physical teaching experience 
as Assistant Professor after acquiring the degree of M.Ch.– 
Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable, set aside – A plain and literal reading of 
the G.O. dated 07.04.2008, the executive order governing the 
recruitment in question does not show that 5 years’ experience of 
physical teaching as an Assistant Professor after acquiring M.Ch. 
degree was one of the requisite qualifications – The G.O., read as a 
whole, evinces the view of the Government that where the experience 
had to be gained posterior to the acquisition of qualification, it 
had directly stated so – Government did not demand such post-
qualification experience for the posts under consideration – Although, 
normally, experience gained after acquiring a particular qualification 
could justifiably be insisted upon by the employer, there could be 
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
415
Dr. Sharmad v. State of Kerala and Others
exceptions and the present case is one such exception – On the 
date of occurrence of vacancy i.e. 13.11.2012, the appellant had 
physical teaching experience of more than 5 years as Assistant 
Professor (having joined on 11.01.2007) and thus was eligible, in 
terms of the recruitment rules i.e., G.O. dated 07.04.2008 – High 
Court erred in placing reliance on r.28(b)(1A) – Judgment of the 
Tribunal restored – Impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 13423 
of 2024 also set aside – Kerala State and Subordinate Services 
Rules, 1958 – Note to r.28(b)(1A). [Paras 14, 26, 23, 29]
Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 – Part – II, 
Rule 10(ab), Rule 10(a)(i) – Promotional appointments – 
Whether Rule 10(ab) has application to the promotional 
appointment in question – ‘Recruitment Rules’ if not defined, 
can mean executive Government orders where Special Rules 
are absent:
Held: ‘Recruitment Rules’ is used in Rule 10(ab) as an alternative 
to Special Rules, without the same being defined – Without 
‘Recruitment Rules’ being defined, it can take colour from Rule 
10(a)(i) and mean and include executive orders of the Government 
where Special Rules are absent – Even if the 1958 Rules were 
applicable, nothing turns on it because Rule 10(ab) itself consciously 
uses the expression “unless otherwise specified” – Rule 10 is 
entirely irrelevant and immaterial for appointment on promotion in 
the Administrative and Teaching Cadres of the Medical Education 
Services – The recruitment rules, i.e., G.O. dated 07.04.2008 was 
issued superseding all existing rules and orders in force on the 
method of appointment of the faculties under medical education 
service – The executive must, therefore, be deemed to be aware 
of what the 1958 Rules, which are the general rules, provided– 
Notwithstanding the same, G.O. dated 07.04.2008 was issued 
governing recruitment in two branches i.e. Administrative and 
Teaching Cadres – G.O. dated 07.04.2008 is, thus, a special rule 
as distinguished from a general rule like the 1958 Rules – Thus, the 
distinction in the qualifications for posts in Branch-I and Branch-II 
in G.O. dated 07.04.2008 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. 
[Paras 17-20]
Maxims – “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” – Whatever 
has not been included has impliedly been excluded – 
416
[2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.