NMC Teaching-Experience Requirement Prevails: Study Leave for Super-Specialty Cannot Be Counted Toward Promotion as Associate Professor

NMC Teaching-Experience Requirement Prevails: Study Leave for Super-Specialty Cannot Be Counted Toward Promotion as Associate Professor

Introduction

In The Dean in Charge, ESI-PGIMSR, ESIC Medical College and ESIC Hospital & DCE (EZ) v. Dr Bijita Dutta & Ors. (Calcutta High Court, 12 September 2025), a Division Bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya resolved a recurrent conflict in medical education administration: whether a faculty member’s period of extraordinary leave (EOL) to pursue a super-specialty degree—albeit treated as “on duty”—can count as “teaching and research experience” for the purpose of promotion under the National Medical Commission (NMC) framework.

The case arose from a challenge to the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) directive to convene a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in favour of the applicant, Dr. Bijita Dutta, an Assistant Professor (Pathology) in ESIC. The CAT had set aside a reasoned order (14 July 2023) by the Director General (DG), ESIC, which affirmed a DPC decision (2 February 2023) declaring Dr. Dutta “unfit” for promotion to Associate Professor with retrospective effect from her eligibility date (26 May 2021). The central legal questions were:

  • Whether the ESIC’s Recruitment Regulations, 2015 (ESIC 2015 Regulations), which speak of length of “regular service,” yield to NMC’s minimum “teaching and research experience” requirements for promotions in medical colleges; and
  • Whether the three-year EOL taken by the applicant to pursue a DM (Clinical Haematology) can be credited as “teaching and research experience” as an Assistant Professor for promotion to Associate Professor in a broad specialty (Pathology).

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by ESIC authorities, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and upheld the DG’s decision that affirmed the DPC’s finding of unfitness for promotion. The Court held that:

  • The ESIC 2015 Regulations explicitly make promotions “subject to” satisfaction of NMC norms. Thus, NMC’s minimum teaching and research requirements prevail over a mere count of regular service.
  • Under the applicable NMC regime—both the 2019 amendments (gazetted on 12 February 2020) and the 2022 Regulations—the candidate must possess four years of teaching and research experience as Assistant Professor in the subject at a permitted/approved/recognized medical college/institution (along with publication requirements), which the applicant did not have as of the eligibility date (26 May 2021) or even as of the DPC date (2 February 2023).
  • The period of EOL spent on pursuing a super-specialty degree, even if treated as “on duty,” cannot be counted as “teaching and research experience” as Assistant Professor.
  • Supreme Court precedents (V.B. Prasad v. Manager, P.M.D. Upper Primary School; Vivek Mudgil v. State of U.P.) support the proposition that study leave cannot be equated with teaching experience for promotions where a minimum experience requirement exists.
  • An ancillary question—whether the study period can be deemed experience as a Senior Resident—was expressly left open, as no enabling rule was shown; in any event, it was immaterial to the outcome.

Detailed Analysis

Regulatory Framework and Factual Matrix

Dr. Dutta joined ESIC as Assistant Professor (Pathology) on 26 May 2016. She went on extraordinary leave (EOL) from 8 August 2016 to 7 August 2019 to pursue a DM (Clinical Haematology), resuming on 8 August 2019. When promotions were considered by a DPC on 2 February 2023, her name was excluded for lack of requisite teaching experience. After a direction in an earlier OA to pass a speaking order, the DG, ESIC, on 14 July 2023 upheld the DPC. The CAT later set this aside and ordered a review DPC. ESIC challenged the CAT’s order before the High Court.

The ESIC 2015 Regulations prescribe for Associate Professor promotion: “Assistant Professor with five years regular service ... subject to satisfaction of MCI [now NMC] Norms and satisfactory completion of mandatory training before consideration for promotion,” with an additional note that EOL “availed for reasons other than on Medical Certificate and for study purpose, shall be excluded from the qualifying service.” The Tribunal had read this to mean study leave should not be excluded from “qualifying service.” The High Court, however, emphasized that the determinative yardstick is not merely qualifying service but NMC’s teaching-experience mandate.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • V.B. Prasad v. Manager, P.M.D. Upper Primary School, (2007) 10 SCC 269

    The Supreme Court held that a period spent on study leave does not count as teaching experience toward promotion to a post where a minimum teaching-experience criterion is prescribed. The Court’s distilled principle—eligibility conditions must be satisfied on the relevant date and study leave does not produce “teaching experience”—was directly applied to reject counting the DM study period as Assistant Professor teaching experience.

  • Vivek Mudgil v. State of U.P., (2019) 2 SCC 427

    The Supreme Court reiterated that teaching experience is a substantive eligibility condition; periods spent on foreign study leave cannot be treated as teaching experience, even if leave rules grant continuity of service or increments. This supported the High Court’s stance that “on duty” status or increment accrual during study leave do not metamorphose that period into teaching experience as Assistant Professor.

These precedents reinforced the High Court’s conclusion that the essence of the requirement is “actual teaching and research experience” in the designated post and subject—experience that cannot be presumed during study leave.

Legal Reasoning

  1. Primacy of NMC norms over ESIC’s service-length phrasing:

    The ESIC 2015 Regulations expressly condition promotions on satisfying NMC norms. The NMC’s Minimum Qualifications for Teachers (2019, published 12 February 2020) require, for Associate Professor in a broad specialty like Pathology, “teaching and research experience” of four years as Assistant Professor in the subject at a permitted/approved/recognized medical college/institution, alongside one qualifying publication. The Teacher’s Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, continue this emphasis, and clause 6 (Table 1A) mirrors the four-year requirement for broad specialties.

  2. Study leave is not teaching experience:

    Even though ESIC treated the study period as “on duty,” the Court held that such administrative continuity does not equate to satisfying “teaching and research experience.” NMC Regulations 2022, clause 3.11, explicitly states that “the period spent by the teaching faculty towards acquisition of degree in Super Specialty subject on concurrent duties/deputation shall not be counted as teaching experience for fulfilling eligibility criteria for promotion in the concerned Super Specialty department.” While the applicant argued that clause 3.11 only limits promotions within the super-specialty department, the Court found the broader and independently applicable rule in clause 6 (Table 1A): for broad specialties, four years’ teaching and research experience as Assistant Professor is required—an experience she indisputably lacked if the three-year DM period is excluded.

  3. Crucial date(s) assessment:

    On the eligibility date (26 May 2021), the applicant had, at most, a few months of pre-DM service and approximately 21 months after resumption—well short of four years’ teaching experience. Even as of the DPC date (2 February 2023), subtracting the DM period yields roughly 3 years and 8 months, still below the NMC’s four-year threshold. Thus, she did not meet the eligibility condition on either date.

  4. Irrelevance of classifying the study period as Senior Resident experience:

    The DG had noted the study period could be seen as Senior Resident experience, not Assistant Professor experience. The High Court saw no enabling rule to reclassify it thus and deemed the point non-dispositive: regardless of classification, it was not Assistant Professor teaching experience and therefore did not advance eligibility.

  5. Correctness of the DPC and DG’s orders, error by the Tribunal:

    The Tribunal had focused on whether study EOL could be excluded from “qualifying service” under the ESIC 2015 Regulations. The High Court found this incomplete because the controlling requirement is the NMC’s teaching-experience mandate. Consequently, the DPC’s and DG’s decisions were legally sound, and the Tribunal’s order directing a review DPC was unsustainable.

Impact and Implications

The judgment has wide-ranging administrative and legal consequences for medical colleges and teaching faculty, particularly within ESIC institutions but also more broadly wherever NMC norms govern promotions:

  • Clear separation between “service length” and “teaching experience”: Institutions must distinctly track teaching and research experience in the designated post and subject. “On duty” status or continuity of service during study leave does not bridge the requirement.
  • Dynamic incorporation of NMC norms: Where institutional regulations stipulate promotions “subject to” NMC/MCI norms, the NMC regime has primacy. Administrators and DPCs must apply NMC requirements as they stood on the crucial date, irrespective of internal service-length thresholds.
  • Faculty career planning: Faculty considering super-specialty study early in their Assistant Professor tenure must anticipate a longer runway to promotion, since study periods will not count toward the NMC-mandated teaching-experience requirement.
  • Uniformity across specialties: For broad specialties, clause 6 (Table 1A) of the 2022 Regulations independently mandates four years’ Assistant Professor teaching and research experience. Even if clause 3.11 is read narrowly as applying to super-specialty promotions, the broad-specialty requirement stands on its own.
  • DPC documentation standards: DPCs should expressly itemize counted teaching-experience periods, exclude study leave from that count, and record the crucial date analysis. This will reduce litigation risk.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Qualifying service” vs “Teaching and research experience”:

    Qualifying service is a raw measure of time spent in service (which may, under some regimes, include “on duty” periods such as certain types of leave). Teaching and research experience, by contrast, demands actual performance of teaching/research duties in the specified post and subject—mere service continuity or “on duty” status does not satisfy it.

  • “Subject to” NMC norms (dynamic incorporation):

    When an institution’s regulations say promotions are “subject to” NMC norms, NMC’s minimum standards govern, even if institutional rules set different service-length yardsticks. This is a form of dynamic incorporation; changes in NMC standards apply automatically unless the institutional rules provide otherwise.

  • Crucial date:

    Eligibility is assessed as of a legally relevant date (e.g., the notified eligibility date or the DPC date), and candidates must meet all conditions by that date. Later accrual of experience cannot retroactively cure ineligibility.

  • Study leave as “on duty”:

    Administrative treatment of study leave as “on duty” may preserve pay/increments/continuity but does not convert that time into teaching experience unless the rules explicitly deem so, which the Court found they do not.

  • Broad specialty vs super-specialty:

    Pathology is a broad specialty. DM (Clinical Haematology) is a super-specialty. The Court noted that, regardless of debates over clause 3.11’s immediate scope for super-specialties, the broad-specialty table (clause 6/Table 1A) independently requires four years’ teaching and research experience as Assistant Professor.

Critical Observations

  • Textual ambiguity in ESIC 2015 note: The parenthetical note in the ESIC 2015 Regulations about excluding EOL “availed for reasons other than on Medical Certificate and for study purpose” can be read in more than one way. The Tribunal construed it to include study leave in qualifying service. The High Court did not finally resolve this, because NMC norms independently determined the outcome. Institutions may consider clarifying this phrasing to reduce interpretive disputes.
  • Publication requirement untouched: Although the NMC regime also requires a publication (in specified indexed journals), the Court did not need to reach this aspect as the applicant failed on teaching-experience length. DPCs should nonetheless continue to assess publication criteria with the same rigor.
  • Administrative takeaway: For future promotions, maintain a granular ledger of Assistant Professor teaching and research experience dates, exclude study leave periods, and compute eligibility by the crucial date to avoid post-hoc disputes.

Conclusion

This judgment establishes a clear and significant principle for promotions in medical teaching institutions: where institutional regulations make promotions “subject to” NMC norms, the NMC’s minimum “teaching and research experience” requirements govern and cannot be diluted by counting study leave—even when such leave is administratively treated as “on duty.” The Calcutta High Court’s reliance on binding Supreme Court precedent underscores that study leave does not generate teaching experience; eligibility conditions must be satisfied on the crucial date in substance, not merely in service duration.

Practically, the decision compels ESIC and similarly situated institutions to recalibrate promotion assessments around actual Assistant Professor teaching and research experience, as defined by NMC Regulations (2019 and 2022), ensuring consistent, uniform, and merit-based advancement across both broad and super-specialties. For faculty, the ruling is a crucial guidepost for career planning: super-specialty study enhances qualifications but does not compress the NMC-mandated teaching-experience timeline for promotion.

Case Snapshot

  • Court: Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
  • Bench: Justice Madhuresh Prasad; Justice Supratim Bhattacharya
  • Date of Judgment: 12 September 2025
  • Parties: The Dean in Charge, ESI-PGIMSR, ESIC Medical College and ESIC Hospital & DCE (EZ) v. Dr. Bijita Dutta & Ors.
  • Key Holding: Study leave for super-specialty (DM) cannot be counted as “teaching and research experience” as Assistant Professor for promotion to Associate Professor; NMC norms prevail over mere length of regular service under ESIC Regulations.
  • Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Tribunal’s order set aside; OA dismissed.

Note on Procedural References

The judgment references the CAT’s order as dated 21.02.2025 in OA No. 1369 of 2023, and later sets aside an order dated 21.07.2025 in OA No. 1639 of 2023. The variation appears to be typographical. It does not affect the legal reasoning or the outcome.

Case Details

Comments