Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the promotion of Dr. Sharmad to the post of Associate Professor in Neurosurgery, citing lack of required experience after acquiring the postgraduate degree. (Para 2)

Eligibility Criteria for Promotion a. Under the Government Order (G.O.) dated 7th April, 2008, the experience required for promotion to Associate Professor does not mandate 5 years of physical teaching after acquiring the postgraduate (M.Ch.) degree. (Para 14)
b. Contrastingly, posts in the Administrative Cadre explicitly mention "after acquiring postgraduate degree" in the experience criteria, indicating deliberate exclusion for Teaching Cadre. (Para 22)

Applicability of KS and SSR a. Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR, requiring experience after acquiring qualifications, was found inapplicable due to the specific exclusions under the G.O. (Para 20)
b. G.O. dated 7th April, 2008, superseded all existing rules regarding qualifications and methods of appointment for faculties under Medical Education Service. (Para 20)

High Court's Erroneous Reliance a. The High Court relied on Rules 10 and 28(b)(1A) of KS and SSR, failing to consider that G.O. dated 7th April, 2008, served as the applicable recruitment rule. (Para 23)
b. The High Court's interpretation would render the deliberate omission of "postgraduate qualification" requirement meaningless. (Para 22)

Latin Maxim Applied

• Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius – The explicit inclusion of "after acquiring postgraduate degree" for Administrative Cadre implies its exclusion for Teaching Cadre. (Para 22)

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in invalidating the promotion based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules. The promotion of Dr. Sharmad was valid as per the G.O. dated 7th April, 2008. (Para 29)
• The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Kerala High Court was set aside, restoring the Tribunal's order. (Para 29, 30)

Acts and Sections Discussed

• Constitution of India (COI) – Article 309
• Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS and SSR) – Rules 10(a), 10(ab), 28(b)(1A)
• Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 19

Legislations

• Government Order (G.O.) dated 7th April, 2008
• Government Order (G.O.) dated 14th December, 2009

Subjects:

Promotion, Associate Professor, Neurosurgery, Teaching Cadre, Administrative Cadre, Eligibility Criteria, Physical Teaching Experience, Postgraduate Degree, Kerala Medical Education Service, Recruitment Rules.

Facts:

Nature of the Litigation

• Civil appeals arising from a High Court decision invalidating a promotion in the Kerala Medical Education Service, specifically in the Department of Neurosurgery.

Reason for Filing the Case

• High Court annulled the promotion, citing non-compliance with experience requirements after acquiring the M.Ch. degree, per KS and SSR rules.

Relevant Laws in Question

• G.O. dated 7th April, 2008 (specific recruitment rules for Medical Education Service).
• G.O. dated 14th December, 2009 (criteria for pay and promotion).
• KS and SSR rules, particularly Rule 10(ab) and Rule 28(b)(1A).

What Has Been Already Decided Until Now?

• Tribunal Decision: Dismissed the claim of Dr. Jyotish against the promotion.
• High Court Decision: Overturned the Tribunal's order, invalidating the promotion.

Issues

1. Whether the eligibility criteria under G.O. dated 7th April, 2008 required 5 years of teaching experience after acquiring the postgraduate (M.Ch.) degree for promotion to Associate Professor.
2. Whether reliance on Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR was justified in determining eligibility.

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellant (Dr. Sharmad)

• Argued that the G.O. dated 7th April, 2008, did not require 5 years of post-M.Ch. teaching experience for promotion in the Teaching Cadre.
• Highlighted the deliberate omission of the phrase "after acquiring postgraduate degree" for Teaching Cadre in the G.O., which was explicit for Administrative Cadre.
• Claimed Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR was inapplicable, as G.O. dated 7th April, 2008, was a special rule superseding general service rules.

Respondent (Dr. Jyotish)

• Asserted that 5 years of teaching experience after acquiring the M.Ch. degree was implied in the eligibility criteria.
• Relied on Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR, arguing it mandated post-qualification experience for promotions.

Decision

The Supreme Court held:

1. G.O. dated 7th April, 2008 governs the recruitment and promotion in Medical Education Service. It did not require post-M.Ch. teaching experience for promotion in the Teaching Cadre.
2. The High Court erred in relying on Rule 10(ab) and interpreting the G.O. to include post-M.Ch. experience when it was deliberately omitted.
3. The High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the Tribunal's order dismissing the claim of Dr. Jyotish was restored.

Ratio:

1. Recruitment rules framed under G.O. dated 7th April, 2008, supersede general service rules in cases of conflict.
2. The omission of the requirement "after acquiring postgraduate degree" in the eligibility criteria for Teaching Cadre reflects a deliberate policy choice.
3. Rule 10(ab) of KS and SSR, being a general rule, does not apply when specific rules are in place.