Basic Teachers satisfying NMC eligibility criteria must be considered for promotion to Assistant Professor.

The petitioner was appointed as a Basic Teacher-cum-Registrar in the Department of Anaesthesiology, AGMC & GBP Hospital, with effect from 12 December 2013. His service was subsequently regularised through the Tripura Public Service Commission on 20 September 2017. His name appeared in the provisional/final seniority materials as a Basic Teacher/Registrar in Anaesthesiology.

The Tripura Medical Education (Administrative & Faculty) Service Conditions Rules, 2015 provided for promotion from the post of Basic Teacher (Tutor/Registrar) to Assistant Professor upon completion of three years’ service in the grade and possession of the qualifications prescribed by the Medical Council of India/National Medical Commission, as amended from time to time.

The National Medical Commission notification dated 30 June 2025 prescribed, inter alia, eligibility routes for appointment as Assistant Professor, including eligibility of diploma holders appointed as Senior Residents before 8 June 2017 who had completed four years’ experience as Senior Resident, and diploma holders working as Specialists or Medical Officers with six years’ cumulative experience.

The petitioner applied for promotion on 9 July 2025 and submitted a further representation on 6 March 2026. Although his case was processed, the Department had not taken a final decision. In a letter dated 26 February 2026 forwarding a list of Basic Teachers, his name was omitted from the Anaesthesiology list. He therefore approached the High Court seeking quashing of the omission and a direction for consideration of his promotion.

1. Whether the petitioner, having served as a Basic Teacher-cum-Registrar in Anaesthesiology since 12 December 2013 and possessing the requisite experience and qualifications under the applicable service rules and NMC regulations, was eligible to be considered for promotion to Assistant Professor.

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to include the petitioner’s name in the relevant list and to decide his representation for promotion was legally sustainable.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Anaesthesiology.

The Court applied the Tripura Medical Education (Administrative & Faculty) Service Conditions Rules, 2015, under which promotion from Basic Teacher (Tutor/Registrar) to Assistant Professor requires three years’ service in the grade and the qualifications prescribed by the MCI/NMC as amended from time to time.

It also relied on the National Medical Commission’s Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, which prescribe the academic qualifications and teaching experience for Assistant Professor.

In particular, the NMC notification dated 30 June 2025 recognised, among other routes, eligibility of diploma holders appointed as Senior Residents before 8 June 2017 with four years’ total Senior Resident experience, as well as diploma holders working as Specialists or Medical Officers in specified government medical institutions with six years’ cumulative experience.

The governing principle applied was that an eligible employee’s claim for promotion must be considered in accordance with the applicable statutory service rules and amended regulatory qualifications.

The Court found that the petitioner had been functioning as a Basic Teacher-cum-Registrar in Anaesthesiology since 2013 and had substantially more than the prescribed three years’ service in the grade.

The applicable 2015 Rules expressly incorporated qualifications prescribed by the MCI/NMC “as amended from time to time,” thereby requiring consideration of the 30 June 2025 NMC notification.

The Court observed that clauses (d) and (e) of the notification provided separate eligibility routes and that the Department had apparently failed to consider them while processing the petitioner’s case.

The State acknowledged that the petitioner’s representation had been forwarded and that his promotion proposal was pending, but produced no material demonstrating any disqualification or adverse circumstance against him.

Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion and that the administrative inaction could not be sustained.

The respondent authorities were directed to consider his promotion within three months from the date of the judgment and order. The writ petition and any pending applications were accordingly disposed of.