DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 293, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 293 : 2023 INSC 772
293
CASE DETAILS
DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 7580 of 2012)
AUGUST 25, 2023
[HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Three Government orders (G.Os) issued 
enhancing the retirement age of doctors in medical category, however, 
were made prospective in nature. Appellants questioned the decision of 
the State of not incorporating a clause in the three G.O’s. issued, making 
their operation retrospective, which would have otherwise enured to their 
beneﬁ t.
Kerala Service Rules – r. 60(a) or 60(c) Part-I – The Government 
Order dated 14.01.2010 enhanced the retirement age of Doctors in the 
Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years 
to 60 years with retrospective eﬀ ect from 01.05.2009 – Thereafter, 
three G.Os were issued including G.O. dated 09.04.2012 whereby, the 
retirement age of the teaching staﬀ  in Homeopathic Medical Colleges 
was also enhanced from 56 years to 60 years – However, all three G.Os 
were prospective in nature – Propriety of:
Held: The singular diﬀ erence was that unlike G.O. dated 14.01.2010, 
the subsequent three G.Os issued by the State were made prospective, thus 
denying any relief to the teaching faculties in the Dental, Ayurvedic and 
Homeopathic streams who had superannuated in the meantime – Such a 
decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive – It is for 
the State to take a call as to
whether the circumstances demand that a 
decision be taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a set of 
employees or not – It must be assumed that the State would have weighed
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
all the pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant extension of 
age – Appellants herein cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended 
age of retirement to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the 
enhancement in age ordered by the State at a later date, they would be 
entitled to all the beneﬁ ts including the monetary beneﬁ ts ﬂ owing from 
G.O. dated 09.04.2012, on the ground of legitimate expectation – The 
idea behind extension of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the 
emergency situation caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting 
in aﬀ ecting the studies or patient care – It was not merely to grant beneﬁ ts 
to a particular class. [Paras 15, 17 and 19]
Doctrine – Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – Service 
Regulations:
Held: The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role 
to play in matters that are strictly governed by the service regulations – This 
is an exercise that is undertaken by the State in discharge of its public duties 
and should not brook undue interference by the Court. [Para 19]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another vs. B.D. 
Singhal and Others 2021 SCC Online SC 466; Monnet Ispat and Energy 
Limited. Vs. Union of India (2012) 11 SCC 1:[2012] 7 SCR 644 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7580 of 2012
From
the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2010 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No.1338 of 2010.
Appearances:
Sanand Ramakrishnan, Rajeev Mishra, Madan M. Bora, A. Raghunath, 
Advs. for the Appellants.
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., C. K. Sasi, Adv. for the Respondents.
295
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The appellants, who are members of the teaching faculty in 
Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the respondent No.1 - State of 
Kerala1, are aggrieved by the judgement dated 6th August, 2010, passed 
by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam2, concurring with the judgement 
dated 19th July, 2010, passed by the learned Single Judge3. The relief prayed 
for by the appellants was for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 
years to 60 years by extending the beneﬁ t of the Government Order4 dated 
14th January, 20105, which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the 
Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 
60 years with retrospective eﬀ ect from 1st May, 2009. The prayer made 
was not granted.
THE FACTS :
2. To put the issue raised in the instant case in the correct perspective, 
we may ﬁ rst refer to the relevant facts. The State issued a Government 
Order6 dated 14th January, 2010, recording inter-alia that there was a 
shortage of qualiﬁ ed and experienced medical faculties in several subjects 
in Government Medical Colleges in the State and that on account of the age 
of retirement of the faculty including medical doctors at 55 years, several 
departments were facing dearth of medical doctors which, was adversely 
aﬀ ecting post graduate medical courses. Noting that at the National level, 
the retirement age of doctors in Medical Colleges was 65 years and retention
of senior professors in service would help the State increase the number 
of post graduate seats as per the revised norms laid down by the Medical 
Council of India, the State ordered that :
1 
For Short ‘the State’
2 
In Writ Appeal No. 1338 of 2010
3 
In Writ Petition (Civil) 13537 of 2010
4 
For short ‘G.O’
5 
G.O.(MS) No.14/2010/H&FWD
6 
G.O. (MS) No.14/2010/H&FWD
DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA 
AND ANOTHER
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
“Government have examined the various aspects and pleased to order 
that the retirement age of the doctors in the Medical category under 
the Medical Education Service be increased to 60 years from existing 
55 years. This order has retrospective eﬀ ect from 1.5.2009. This order 
is not applicable for faculties in Dental, Nursing, Pharmacy and Non-
Medical categories under Medical Education Service.”
3. Aggrieved by the exclusion of doctors/professors of Government 
Homeopathic Colleges from the purview of the captioned G.O. dated 14th 
January, 2010, the appellants ﬁ led a writ petition7 in the High Court of 
Kerala praying inter alia for extension of the beneﬁ t of the said G.O. to 
Homeopathic Doctors working in Government Homeopathic Colleges. The 
said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 29th March, 2010 
with a direction issued to the State to consider the pending representations 
of the appellants and pass an order within three months. Since the State did 
not take any decision on their representations, the appellants approached the 
High Court once again and ﬁ led another writ petition3, which was dismissed 
by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19th July, 2010. Noting that the 
State Government did not amend Rule 60 (a) or 60 (c) Part (I) of the Kerala 
Service Rules8, the learned Single Judge held that the existing rule position 
as obtained from Rule 60(c) of the K.S. Rules, could not be ignored.
It was 
also observed that the appellants had not challenged the G.O. dated 14th 
January, 2010. Instead, they approached the Court seeking parity with those 
covered under the said G.O., by claiming that it ought to be extended to 
them as well so as to enable them to continue in service beyond the normal 
date of retirement, which was impermissible.
4. Dissatisﬁ ed by the above judgement, the appellants ﬁ led an appeal2 
which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 
Concurring with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, the Division 
Bench observed that since extension of age for the teaching staﬀ  of Medical 
Colleges is a policy decision, it is not open for the High Court to issue any 
directions to the respondent No.1 – State to increase the retirement age of the 
teaching staﬀ  of Homeopathic Medical Colleges. Hence the present appeal.
7 
Writ Petition (C) No.10709 of 2010
8 
For short ‘K.S. Rules’
297
THE RELEVANT RULES :
5. The conditions of service of persons employed by the State are 
regulated by the K.S. Rules, unless they are exempted entirely or in part as 
prescribed in Rule 3. Rule 60 falls under Chapter VIII of Part I of the K.S. 
Rules that deals with compulsorily retirement. Rule 60 (c) as it stood at the 
relevant point in time prescribed that : 
“60 (c) The teaching staﬀ  of all Educational Institutions (including 
Principals of Colleges) who complete the age of 55 years during 
the course of an academic year shall continue in service till the 
last day of the month in which the academic year due, before the 
last day of the month in which they attain the age of 55 years. 
But they shall not be eligible for increment or promotion during 
the period of their service beyond such date. If they are on leave 
on the day they attain the age of 55 years and if there is no prospect 
of their returning to duty before the closing day of the academic year 
for vacation they shall be retired with eﬀ ect from the last day of the 
month in which they attain the age of 55 years. But in cases where 
oﬃ  cers coming under this rule are under suspension on the date of 
superannuation or thereafter the date of superannuation or on the date 
of suspension whichever is later.
If, however, the day on which the teaching staﬀ  (including Principals 
of Colleges) attain the age of 55 years falls within the period of one 
month beginning with the day of re-opening of the
institutions they 
shall cease to be on duty with eﬀ ect from the date of such re-opening 
and they shall be granted additional leave from the date of re-opening 
to the last day of the month in which they attain the age of 55 years. 
They shall be entitled to the beneﬁ t of increment if it falls due before 
the actual date on which they attain the age of 55 years.”
6. Rule 60 (a) which is more relevant for our discussion, reads as 
follows:
“60. (a) : Except as otherwise provided in these rules the date 
of compulsory retirement of an oﬃ  cer shall take eﬀ ect from the 
afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 
DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA 
AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
55 years. He may be retained after this date only with the sanction of 
government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, 
but he must not be retained after the age of 60 years except in very 
special circumstances.”
7. As can be gathered from the above, Rule 60 (a) of the K.S. Rules 
is a general provision and is not applicable to the teaching staﬀ  for whom a 
separate provision has been speciﬁ cally incorporated, i.e., Rule 60(c) that 
prescribes their age of retirement and classiﬁ es them as a separate class in 
the matter of retirement. Rule 60 (c) prescribes that even if the teaching 
staﬀ  completes the age of 55 years during the course of an academic year, 
subject to the conditions stipulated in the said Rule, they would continue 
in service till the end of the academic year. Quite apparently, the object 
behind carving out this exception for the teaching staﬀ  is to safeguard the 
interest of the students whose studies may not get adversely aﬀ ected due 
to the superannuation of a teacher midway through an academic session. 
8. After notice was issued in the present appeal on 16th December, 
2010, some subsequent developments took place as brought out in an 
application moved by the appellants. In the year 2012, the respondent No.1 
– State Government issued three G.O.s in a space of ten days, namely, G.O. 
dated 30th March, 2012, G.O. dated 7th April, 2012 and G.O. dated 9th April, 
2012. In G.O. dated
30th March, 20129, taking note of the earlier G.O. dated 
14th January, 2010 whereby, the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical 
category under Medical Education Service had been enhanced from 55 years 
to 60 years, the State ordered that the retirement age of doctors working in 
Government Dental Colleges and the Dental Wings in the Medical Colleges 
be also enhanced from the age of 55 years to 60 years, so as to avoid problems 
that may be faced by the research students due to retirement of experienced 
faculty working as Guides.
9. This was followed by issuance of G.O. dated 7th April, 201210 
whereunder, based on similar considerations, the respondent No.1 – 
State Government enhanced the retirement age in respect of the staﬀ  
teaching in Ayurveda Colleges from 56 years to 60 years. Next, came 
9 
G.O.(MS) No.105/2012/H&FWD
10 G.O.(MS) No.107/2012/H&FWD
299
G.O. dated 9th April, 201211 whereby, the retirement age of the teaching 
staﬀ  in Homeopathic Medical Colleges was also enhanced from 56 years 
to 60 years, bringing them at par with the teaching staﬀ  of Ayurvedic 
Medical Education. It is noteworthy that all the three G.Os. issued by the 
State subsequent to issuance of the G.O. dated 14th January, 2010, were 
prospective in nature.
10. In view of the above successive decisions taken by the respondent 
No.1 – State Government, during the pendency of the present appeal, the 
grounds originally taken by the appellants to assail the impugned judgement 
and their argument that G.O. dated 14th January, 2010 was discriminatory as it 
treated Doctors in Medical Colleges on a better footing vis-à-vis Homeopathic 
and Ayurvedic Doctors though they formed a homogenous group, were no 
longer available. As a result, without ﬁ ling an application for amending the 
appeal, the appellants ﬁ led an additional aﬃ  davit on 1st October, 2012, where 
a grievance was raised that though several representations had been made 
by them to the State when they were still in service, the G.O. dated 9th April, 
2012 issued later on, was not given retrospective eﬀ ect thereby depriving 
them of the beneﬁ ts of enhancement of age to which they would have been 
legitimately entitled and in the meantime, they had retired. Inherent in this 
argument is the plea of legitimate expectation taken by the appellants.
THE ANALYSIS :
11. It is well-settled
that the age of retirement is purely a policy 
matter that lies within the domain of the State Government. It is not for the 
courts to prescribe a diﬀ erent age of retirement from the one applicable to 
Government employees under the relevant service Rules and Regulations. 
Nor can the Court insist that once the State had taken a decision to issue 
a similar Government Order that would extend the age of retirement of 
the staﬀ  teaching in the Homeopathic Colleges as was issued in respect of 
diﬀ erent categories of teaching staﬀ  belonging to the Dental stream and the 
Ayurvedic stream, the said G.O. ought to have been made retrospective, 
as was done when G.O. dated 14th January, 2010 was issued by the State 
11 G.O.(MS) No.108/2012/H&FWD
DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA 
AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
and given retrospective eﬀ ect from 1st May, 2009. These are all matters 
of policy that engage the State Government. It may even elect to give the 
beneﬁ t of extension of age to a particular class of Government employees 
while denying the said beneﬁ t to others for valid considerations that may 
include ﬁ nancial implications, administrative considerations, exigencies 
of service, etc.
12. In a somewhat comparable case on facts that arose in New Okhla 
Industrial Development Authority and Another vs. B.D. Singhal and 
Others12, the appellant - Authority (NOIDA) had resolved to recommend 
enhancement of the age of superannuation of its employees from 58 to 
60 years. The said proposal, when sent to the State Government for prior 
approval, was turned down. This led to the aggrieved employees ﬁ ling 
a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which 
was allowed and NOIDA was directed to consider the matter afresh and 
forward its proposal to the State Government for its approval. It was left 
open to the State Government to consider giving eﬀ ect to the increase in 
the age of retirement from the date when NOIDA had resolved to bear 
the ﬁ nancial burden for the increase of age or from such date as it may 
consider expedient. This time, the State Government acceded to the 
proposal received from NOIDA for enhancing the age of retirement to 60 
years, but made the said decision prospective. Aggrieved by the
refusal of 
the State Government to make the decision retrospective, the respondents 
amended the pending writ petition which was allowed by the High Court 
that struck down the provision of making the decision prospective and 
directed that such of the respondents who had retired from service by 
then, would be deemed to have worked till the extended age of retirement, 
with all consequential beneﬁ ts. Challenging the said decision, the State of 
Uttar Pradesh ﬁ led a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 
136 of the Constitution of India, which was allowed by this Court with 
the following observations :
“22. Whether the age of superannuation should be enhanced is a 
matter of policy. If a decision has been taken to enhance the age of 
superannuation, the date with eﬀ ect from which the enhancement 
12 2021 SCC Online SC 466
301
should be made falls within the realm of policy. The High Court 
in ordering that the decision of the State government to accept the 
proposal to enhance the age of superannuation must date back to 29 
June 2002 has evidently lost sight of the above factual background, 
more speciﬁ cally (i) the rejection of the original proposal on 22 
September 2009; and (ii) the judgment of the Division Bench dated 
17 January 2012 refusing to set aside the order rejecting the proposal 
on 22 September 2009 which has attained ﬁ nality. But there is a more 
fundamental objection to the basis of the decision of the High Court. 
The inﬁ rmity in the judgment lies in the fact that the High Court 
has trenched upon the realm of policy making and has assumed 
to itself, jurisdiction over a matter which lies in the domain of the 
executive. Whether the age of superannuation should be increased 
and if so, the date from which this should be eﬀ ected is a matter 
of policy into which the High Court ought not to have entered.
××× 
××× 
×××
24. Whether the decision to increase the age of superannuation 
should date back to the resolution passed by NOIDA or should 
be made eﬀ ective from the date of the approval by the State 
government was a matter for the State government to decide. 
Ultimately, in drawing every cut-off, some employees would 
stand on one side of the line while the others would be positioned 
otherwise. This element of hardship cannot be a ground for the 
High Court to hold
that the decision was arbitrary. When the State 
government originally decided to increase the age of superannuation 
of its own employees from ﬁ fty-eight to sixty years on 28 November 
2001, it had left the public sector corporations to take a decision based 
on the ﬁ nancial impact which would result if they were to increase the 
age of superannuation for their own employees.
25. From time to time the authorities of the State took a decision bearing 
upon the exigencies of service prevailing in each organisation. ………. 
The State government had evidently determined that it was for each 
organisation to consider and determine the impact of the ﬁ nancial 
burden, and based on that the organisation was to submit a proposal 
for the approval of the government.
DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA 
AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
26. The High Court’s observation that the Government order 
on 30 September 2012 increasing the age of superannuation 
prospectively is arbitrary seems to be based on the premise that the 
respondent-employees have a vested right to the increase in the age 
of retirement on the passage of the resolution by NOIDA. However, 
Section 19 of the Act stipulates that regulations - which would include 
amendments as in this case - will require the previous approval of 
the State Government. The employees will have a vested right to the 
increased age of superannuation only after the service regulations are 
modiﬁ ed upon approval of the State Government, and from such date 
as maybe prescribed by the Government. Para 1(ii) of the government 
order issued on 30 September 2012 clearly and in unambiguous 
terms states that the order shall come into force prospectively. The 
government order can be given retrospective application only 
if expressly stated or inferred through necessary implication. 
Therefore, the respondent-employees could not have claimed a 
vested right that the enhancement in the age of retirement should 
be made eﬀ ective from the date on which NOIDA had resolved to 
submit a proposal for the approval of the government.”
(Emphasis added)
13. In the instant case, at the time of issuing G.O. dated 14th January, 
2010, the reasons that had weighed with the State for enhancing the age of 
retirement from 55 years to 60 years
have been spelt out. The recitals refer 
to the dearth of eligible hands in the middle level cadre for promotion, the 
fact that many Post Graduate Medical Courses were likely to be adversely 
aﬀ ected due to the said reason and also the fact that retention of senior 
professors in service at Government Medical Colleges would help the State 
Government to increase the number of Post Graduate seats, in terms of the 
revised norms circulated by the Medical Council of India. 
14. Similarly, while considering extension of the age of retirement of 
Doctors in the Dental faculties under the Medical Education Service, taking 
note of a letter addressed by the Director of Medical Education who stated 
that some highly qualiﬁ ed members of the Senior Dental faculty were due 
to retire and their retirement would adversely aﬀ ect the research students
303
working under them, as also hinder the conduct of some of the ongoing 
Post Graduate Courses in Government Dental Colleges, the State permitted 
enhancement of their age from 55 years to 60 years.
15. When it came to the third G.O. dated 7th April, 2012, the recitals 
therein refer to the report of the Director of Ayurveda Medical College who 
pointed out dearth of qualiﬁ ed teaching staﬀ  in higher categories and the 
adverse remarks made by the Central Council of India Medicine, which had 
proceeded to reduce the number of BAMS seats from the sanctioned strength 
of 70 to 50 in the Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram, 
and had refused to grant permission for Postgraduate courses in diﬀ erent 
specialities. Keeping this scenario in mind, the State decided to enhance the 
retirement age of the teaching faculty in Ayurveda Colleges from 56 years to 
60 years. Lastly, came G.O. dated 9th April, 2012 wherein, taking note of the 
representation received from the Principal of the Government Homeopathic 
College, Thiruvannathapuram, similar beneﬁ t was extended to the teaching 
staﬀ  in Homeopathic Colleges. The singular diﬀ erence was that unlike G.O. 
dated 14th January, 2010, the subsequent three G.Os issued by the State were 
made prospective, thus denying any relief to the teaching faculties in the 
Dental, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic streams who had superannuated in the 
meantime. In this background, the appellants ﬁ led the additional aﬃ  davit 
questioning
the decision of the State of not incorporating a clause in the 
three G.O’s. issued later on, making their operation retrospective, which 
would have otherwise enured to their beneﬁ t.
16. Had the matter stood as it was on the date when the impugned 
judgement came to be passed, perhaps the appellants could have advanced 
an argument that the action of the State must be expected to be fair and 
reasonable and in line with the guarantees extended under Article 14 of 
the Constitution of India and that there was no rationale in treating them 
diﬀ erently when Doctors/Professors from all streams teaching in Medical 
Colleges in the State formed a homogenous class and are governed by 
the same set of Service Rules and Regulations. But after the respondent 
No.1 – State Government issued three successive G.Os extending the age 
of retirement of the members of the Dental Faculties, Ayurvedic Faculties 
and Homeopathic Faculties from 55 years to 60 years, the insistence on the 
DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA 
AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]
304 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
part of the appellants that these G.Os ought to be given retrospective eﬀ ect, 
even though there was no clause to that eﬀ ect inserted therein, cannot be 
countenanced. 
17. Such a decision lies exclusively within the domain of the Executive. 
It is for the State to take a call as to whether the circumstances demand that 
a decision be taken to extend the age of superannuation in respect of a set of 
employees or not. It must be assumed that the State would have weighed all 
the pros and cons before arriving at any decision to grant extension of age. As 
for the aspect of retrospectivity of such a decision, let us not forget, whatever 
may be the cut-oﬀ  date ﬁ xed by the State Government, some employees 
would always be left out in the cold. But that alone would not make the 
decision bad; nor would it be a ground for the Court to tread into matters of 
policy that are best left for the State Government to decide. The appellants 
herein cannot claim a vested right to apply the extended age of retirement 
to them retrospectively and assume that by virtue of the enhancement in age 
ordered by the State at a later date, they would be entitled to all the beneﬁ ts 
including the monetary beneﬁ ts ﬂ owing from G.O. dated 9th April, 2012, on 
the ground of legitimate expectation.
18. Pertinently, similar pleas as taken by the respondents-employees 
herein were raised in the case of NOIDA (supra) where the employees 
had sought to
invoke the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate 
expectation for increasing the age of superannuation retrospectively and 
were shot down as inapplicable. For taking this view, reliance was placed 
on Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited. Vs. Union of India13 wherein this 
Court had opined that if a communication issued was a proposal or a mere 
recommendation, the principle of promissory estoppel will not apply for the 
simple reason that for invoking the said principle, there must be a promise 
and based on the said promise, the party concerned ought to have acted to 
its prejudice. In the NOIDA case (supra), this Court had outrightly turned 
down the argument advanced by the respondent–employees therein that 
the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation would come into play. It was held 
that the said doctrine cannot have a place when enhancement of the age of 
superannuation is “a public function” that is governed by the provisions of 
13 (2012) 11 SCC 1
305
the Statute and the relevant service regulations. The position is the same 
in the present case. 
19. No doubt, the appellants were the ﬁ rst to raise the battle cry when 
they ﬁ led not one, but two writ petitions in the High Court for extending 
them the beneﬁ t of G.O. dated 14th January, 2010. But it is a matter of record 
that there was no positive order granted in their favour throughout. Even 
in the present proceedings, no interim order was passed in favour of the 
appellants who have superannuated in the meantime. The clock cannot be 
put back for them by reading retrospectivity in the G.O. dated 09th April, 
2012, when the State elected not to insert any such clause and evidently 
intended to apply it with prospective eﬀ ect. The idea behind extension 
of retirement age of doctors was to take care of the emergency situation 
caused by shortage of doctors, which was resulting in aﬀ ecting the studies 
or patient care. It was not merely to grant beneﬁ ts to a particular class. The 
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation does not have any role to play in matters 
that are strictly governed by the service regulations. This is an exercise that 
is undertaken by the State in discharge of its public duties and should not 
brook undue interference by the Court. 
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment is 
upheld. It is deemed appropriate to dismiss the present appeal as meritless 
while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses. Ordered
accordingly. 
Headnotes prepared by:  
Appeal dismissed.
Ankit Gyan
DR. PRAKASAN M.P. AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KERALA 
AND ANOTHER [HIMA KOHLI, J.]