Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption

“Admittedly, the appellant has completed 09 years 10 months and 14 days service… therefore, not entitled to exemption”, In a crucial reaffirmation of statutory discipline in educational appointments, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the exemption from State Eligibility Test (SET) under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules cannot be granted unless a teacher strictly completes ten years of approved High School service.

Bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed the appellant’s plea seeking exemption from SET qualification on the ground of teaching experience. The Court held that statutory minimum experience requirements must be strictly complied with and cannot be relaxed on equitable considerations.

The Claim for Exemption from SET

While the primary controversy in the case revolved around whether SET must be in the concerned subject, the appellant also raised an alternative plea under Rule 10(4) of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules.

Rule 10(4) provides that teachers who have completed ten years of approved teaching service at the High School level are exempted from passing the State Eligibility Test.

The appellant argued that having long served in the institution — first as Upper Primary School Teacher and later as High School Teacher — he was entitled to exemption from the SET requirement.

However, upon scrutiny, the authorities found that after excluding periods of deputation and leave without allowance, the appellant had only completed 9 years, 10 months and 14 days of approved High School service.

The shortfall of less than two months became the decisive factor.

Can Experience Shortfall Be Condoned?

The legal question before the Court was whether the requirement of “ten years” under Rule 10(4) could be interpreted flexibly so as to accommodate marginal shortfall, particularly when the candidate otherwise possessed academic qualifications.

The appellant attempted to rely on equitable considerations and long-standing service history, contending that minor deficiency in service length should not defeat substantive eligibility.

No Equity Against Statute

The Bench categorically rejected this submission.

The Court recorded:

“Admittedly, the appellant has completed 09 years 10 months and 14 days service, i.e., less than ten years which is the minimum prescribed by the Rules and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to seek an exemption under the said Rule.”

The Court made it clear that Rule 10(4) prescribes a statutory minimum, and courts cannot dilute or rewrite it based on sympathetic considerations.

The judgment reflects a settled principle of service jurisprudence — that when eligibility criteria are statutorily fixed, neither administrative authorities nor courts can relax them unless the rule itself provides such power.

Statutory Interpretation: Precision in Service Requirements

The Supreme Court’s approach underscores that experience-based exemptions are strictly conditional.

The Court declined to entertain any argument that substantial compliance should suffice. Instead, it treated the ten-year requirement as a clear and objective benchmark.

In service law, experience requirements often serve as substitutes for formal qualifications. In this case, ten years of High School teaching experience could compensate for absence of SET qualification. However, the Court made it evident that such substitution is permissible only when the statutory threshold is fully satisfied.

Even a shortfall of days or months renders the candidate ineligible.

No Blending of Primary and Alternative Eligibility

An important aspect of the ruling is that the Court treated the two eligibility routes — passing SET in the concerned subject and exemption based on ten years’ service — as independent and self-contained.

Failure in one cannot be cured by partial satisfaction of the other.

Since the appellant lacked SET in Economics and also failed to complete ten years of approved High School service, he could not qualify under either pathway.

Protection Against Recovery

While dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court ensured that no recovery of excess salary paid to the appellant would be made.

The Court clarified:

“No recovery of excess amount paid to the appellant, if any, shall be carried out by the respondent-authorities.”

Thus, while upholding statutory rigour, the Court balanced equities by protecting the appellant from financial hardship.

Broader Implications for Educational Service Law

This ruling sends a strong message to appointing authorities and candidates alike that eligibility criteria under the Kerala Education Rules must be strictly adhered to.

The decision reinforces three principles:

First, experience-based exemptions are conditional and require full compliance.

Second, marginal shortfall cannot be condoned in absence of statutory relaxation power.

Third, courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 will not interfere where statutory ineligibility is clearly established.

The judgment ensures that academic standards and statutory discipline remain paramount in Higher Secondary appointments.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Zubair P. v. State of Kerala & Ors. firmly establishes that “ten years” under Rule 10(4) means ten completed years — not approximate service, not near compliance, and not equitable substitution.

Where the statute prescribes a minimum, courts cannot rewrite it in the name of fairness.

The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

Date of Decision: 13 February 2026