1. Introduction

This commentary examines the Supreme Court of India’s decision in DR. SHARMAD v. STATE OF KERALA (2025 INSC 70), decided on January 10, 2025. The appeals before the Court centered on whether a five-year “physical teaching experience” had to be acquired “after obtaining the required postgraduate (or super specialty) degree” for promotions in the Teaching Cadre of the Kerala Medical Education Service. The key parties include two sets of appellants (doctors seeking promotions to higher teaching posts) and the State of Kerala as respondent. The judgment clarifies how executive orders—particularly the Government Order dated April 7, 2008 (hereafter, “G.O. 07.04.2008”)—must be interpreted regarding experience requirements for appointments and promotions to Associate Professor and Professor in super-specialty disciplines.

The dispute arose when the High Court of Kerala set aside certain promotions of teaching faculty on grounds that they allegedly lacked mandatory post-qualification “physical teaching experience.” The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, thereby establishing a clear rule that where an executive order or “special rule” governing recruitment does not explicitly require experience after acquiring a given qualification, courts should refrain from reading such a requirement into it.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In its comprehensive decision, the Supreme Court held that the relevant executive instructions (G.O. 07.04.2008) governing promotions in the Kerala Medical Education Service’s Teaching Cadre did not mandate that the required five-year physical teaching experience be gained strictly after the acquisition of a postgraduate or super-specialty degree.

The Court emphasized that the G.O. 07.04.2008 was a “special rule” and superseded any general rules under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (KS & SSR) to the extent that there was a conflict. Citing the principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the Court stressed that the explicit inclusion of “after acquiring postgraduate degree” for the Administrative Cadre but not for the Teaching Cadre in the G.O. 07.04.2008 indicated a deliberate omission for teaching posts.

Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court’s rulings that had applied an “after qualification” experience requirement to the Teaching Cadre posts. The Supreme Court restored the Kerala Administrative Tribunal orders, thereby upholding the promotions of the contesting doctors.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court carefully examined several cases and rules:

• Sheshrao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya Karale (1991 Supp (1) SCC 367): The High Court had relied on a line of reasoning suggesting that experience should normally be counted after acquiring the minimum qualification. However, the Supreme Court pointed to the qualifier in that very judgment: “unless the context otherwise demands.” Since the context here—the special rule—explicitly departed from the usual approach (and did not say “after acquiring the postgraduate degree”), the normal rule did not apply.
• Arun Kumar Agarwal (Dr.) v. State of Bihar (1991 Supp (1) SCC 287): Referenced to highlight that where candidates have higher qualifications (i.e., super-specialty degrees), such candidates might be eligible for preference. Nonetheless, the Court held that points of preference do not override explicit experience requirements. In this case, both disputing doctors held M.Ch. Degrees; the decisive factor was the overall teaching experience, which the G.O. did not require to follow the “post-degree” chronology.

Moreover, the Supreme Court analyzed Rule 10(ab) and Rule 28 of the KS & SSR. It noticed that the expression “unless otherwise specified” in Rule 10(ab) granted exceptions in favor of the G.O. 07.04.2008, which is the governing instruction for promotions in the Medical Education Services. Since the G.O. specifically omitted the phrase “after acquiring postgraduate degree” for teaching posts, the more general KS & SSR provisions did not apply.

B. Legal Reasoning

The fulcrum of the Supreme Court’s reasoning is that executive orders (particularly G.O. 07.04.2008) override any general rule if such an order serves as the special rule for a given service or cadre:

1. Special Rule Prevails: Under Article 309 of the Constitution, in the absence of formal statutory rules, the government can lay down service conditions vide executive instructions. Here, the G.O. 07.04.2008 functioned as the “special rule.” It was promulgated “in supersession of all existing rules and orders,” thereby deliberately excluding the requirement of “post-qualification experience” for teaching posts, as it did not replicate the phrase “after acquiring postgraduate degree.”
2. Interpretation of “Unless Otherwise Specified”: Rule 10(ab) of the KS & SSR states that experience is typically to be counted after acquisition of the foundational qualification, “unless otherwise specified.” G.O. 07.04.2008 embodied that “otherwise specified” scenario for teaching posts— and thus did not impose an “after acquiring M.Ch.” condition. Hence, the alleged deficiency in “post-degree experience” was irrelevant under the properly interpreted rule.
3. Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: By including “after acquiring postgraduate degree” for administrative posts and omitting it for the teaching posts, the executive exhibited its clear intent to impose that requirement only in the former case. The Supreme Court reasoned that if the government had intended to require “post-degree experience” for teaching positions, it would have inserted identical language in the column “experience criteria” for those posts.

C. Impact

This decision has significant implications for future litigation involving promotions in the Kerala Medical Education Service:

• Clarity in Executive Rule-Making: If an executive order underwriting promotions or appointments wants to impose a strict “post-qualification experience” requirement, it must do so explicitly. General rules or assumptions will not suffice unless they are fully aligned with the special rule’s text.
• Precedence for Teaching Cadre Promotions: The judgment serves as a clear precedent that, for teaching positions in super-specialties, experience criteria will be interpreted exactly as set forth in the controlling government order— neither extended nor diluted without express legislative or executive clarifications.
• Narrower Role of Judicial Intervention: The Court underscores that judicial bodies must avoid rewriting or reading extraneous conditions into executive or statutory rules. Any conflict between general and special provisions must be resolved by giving primacy to the special provision.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Below are some key legal concepts in simplified terms:

• Physical Teaching Experience: A requirement that a faculty member must have served in an actual teaching capacity for a specified number of years. The question was whether this period starts only after obtaining certain degrees. The Supreme Court clarifies that “post-degree” is required only if explicitly stated for that post.
• Special vs. General Rule: “Special rules” pertain specifically to a particular department or cadre (here, the G.O. 07.04.2008 for Medical Education Services), whereas “general rules” apply to all state government employees (e.g., the KS & SSR). If both exist and conflict, the special rule usually prevails.
• Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius: A Latin maxim meaning “the express mention of one thing excludes all others.” Where the provision explicitly states certain posts must have experience after a degree, it implies that other posts not mentioned do not require it.
• Recruitment Rules via Executive Order: Under the Indian Constitution, when there is no fully codified statutory rule, the state government can govern service matters using executive orders. These have the force of law unless they conflict with an existing constitutional or statutory provision.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces that courts cannot add additional constraints (like “post-degree experience”) into a government order that does not stipulate them. The key takeaway is that promotion criteria must be followed precisely as laid out in the applicable “special rule.” For Kerala’s Medical Education Services, if the executive order for teaching posts does not say “after acquiring postgraduate degree,” an aspirant’s entire tenure on the feeder post is valid, whether gained before or after obtaining a higher qualification. This verdict not only restores previously set-aside promotions but also provides a clear interpretative template for deciding similar promotion disputes. Such clarity will aid administrators, tribunals, and courts in adhering strictly to the text of executive orders and avoiding judicial overreach by inserting unmentioned prerequisites.