Experience on a specified post counts despite later-acquired higher qualifications absent an express contrary rule.

The petitioner, an M.B.B.S. graduate, completed his internship in 2011–2012 and subsequently worked as a Junior Resident. From 18 April 2016, he served as a Medical Officer, Class-II, and later held posts including Taluka Health Officer and Senior Medical Officer in the State health service.

He obtained an M.D. in Community Medicine on 30 November 2025 while serving as an in-service resident.

The Gujarat Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 117/2025–2026 for appointment to the post of Medical Officer of Health, Class-I.

The applicable Recruitment Rules required an M.B.B.S. degree, a specified postgraduate qualification, and at least five years’ public-health experience as a Medical Officer, Class-II, in Government service or in an equivalent post.

The petitioner’s roll number was included in the list of unsuccessful candidates and he was excluded from the interview. Although the exclusion list did not state reasons, the petitioner was informed that he lacked five years’ experience acquired after obtaining his postgraduate degree.

He challenged that exclusion before the Gujarat High Court.

The Court applied the Recruitment Rules for Medical Officer of Health, Class-I, which separately prescribed the educational qualifications and required at least five years’ public-health experience as Medical Officer, Class-II, in Government service or on an equivalent post.

It also applied Rule 8(8)(a)–(b) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) (General) Rules, 1967, under which experience is ordinarily computed from the date of obtaining the requisite qualification and with reference to the last date for receipt of applications, unless otherwise provided in the Recruitment Rules.

The Court distinguished Kaizad Mehernosh Dastoor v. Chairman, GPSC, including the Division Bench decision reported in 2025 (3) GLH 117, because those cases involved materially different experience clauses requiring composite or specified experience.

It further distinguished Indian Airlines Ltd. v. S. Gopalakrishnan, 2001 (2) SCC 362, where the governing rules expressly provided that experience would be computed after acquiring the necessary qualifications.

The Court held that the Recruitment Rules in the present case required experience on a particular post, namely Medical Officer, Class-II, and did not state that such experience had to be acquired after obtaining the higher postgraduate qualification.

The petitioner had been serving as Medical Officer, Class-II since 2016 and possessed the qualification required for that post when he gained the relevant experience.

Since the postgraduate degree was an educational qualification for the promotional/recruitment post and was not a prerequisite for holding the post on which the experience had to be acquired, the GPSC could not retrospectively impose a requirement that the five years’ experience must follow the postgraduate degree.

The phrase “unless otherwise provided in the recruitment rule” in Rule 8(8) was significant: the specific experience requirement in the Recruitment Rules displaced the general method of computation relied upon by the GPSC.

The Court therefore concluded that the GPSC had introduced a condition not contained in the Recruitment Rules or the advertisement.

The petitioner’s exclusion from the interview was declared illegal and contrary to the Recruitment Rules.

The GPSC was directed to include him among the candidates eligible to appear for the interview for Medical Officer of Health, Class-I.

The petition was allowed and disposed of accordingly.

The Court refused the GPSC’s request to stay the judgment for two weeks, particularly because the interviews were scheduled for 11 September 2026.