Bombay High Court

Promotion to Professor requires ten years' teaching experience regardless of intervening Associate Professor post availability.

Aparna Prasanna Sole vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Dept Of Ayurveda And Ors

Bombay High CourtJUDGMENT: June 23, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The Petitioners, Assistant Professors in aided Ayurvedic Colleges in Pune, sought promotion to the post of Professor in their respective subjects ('Balrog' and 'Kayachikitsa')

Source reference: p. 2

Despite completing over 10 years of service, the Respondent-State denied their promotions via a communication dated June 6, 2024

Source reference: p. 11-12

The State’s initial rejection was based on a technicality: since the subject departments lacked a sanctioned post of "Associate Professor," the Petitioners could not be promoted to "Professor," as the State interpreted existing recruitment rules to require service as an Associate Professor as a prerequisite

Source reference: p. 13, 15-16

The Petitioners challenged this, citing National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) Regulations which allow promotion based on ten years of teaching experience in the concerned subject

Source reference: p. 7, 14
02

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent-State can deny promotion to the post of Professor to an Assistant Professor who possesses 10 years of teaching experience solely because a post of Associate Professor (Reader) is not sanctioned in that specific department.

Source reference: p. 3, 17

2. Whether the NCISM Regulations 2022 and MUHS Promotion Rules 2007 mandate promotion over direct recruitment for single vacant posts.

Source reference: p. 4, 14
03

Law Applied

Regulation 17(b)(i) of the NCISM (Minimum Standard of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2022, which stipulates that the eligibility for the post of Professor is ten years of teaching experience as a regular teacher in the concerned subject or five years as an Associate Professor

Source reference: p. 7, 17

MUHS Promotion Rules 2007, which state that if a post is a single post, it must be filled by promotion first before resorting to direct recruitment

Source reference: p. 4

Section 44 of the NCISM Act, 2020, which empowers the Central Government/NCISM to issue binding directions to State Governments regarding teacher qualifications and experience

Source reference: p. 11
04

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the State’s rejection was arbitrary and in direct contravention of the apex body's (NCISM) regulations

Source reference: p. 14

The court observed that the NCISM Regulations 2022 explicitly provide two paths to becoming a Professor: either 5 years as an Associate Professor OR 10 years as a regular teacher (Assistant Professor) in the subject

Source reference: p. 7, 10

During the proceedings, the State filed an affidavit dated January 30, 2025, conceding that it had "decided to allow the promotion" to overcome the technical challenge where Assistant Professors had no career progression due to the absence of a sanctioned Associate Professor post

Source reference: p. 17

The court matched this concession with the MUHS 2007 rules, concluding that since the Petitioners satisfied the 10-year experience criteria and the posts were single/vacant, there was no legal basis for the State to withhold promotion

Source reference: p. 18
05

Holding

The court quashed and set aside the impugned rejection communication dated June 6, 2024

It held that the Petitioners are eligible for promotion based on their 10+ years of teaching experience under NCISM norms

Source reference: p. 18

The Respondents were directed to promote the Petitioners from Assistant Professor to Professor within two weeks and grant them all consequential benefits in accordance with NCISM and MUHS regulations

Source reference: p. 19
Bombay High Court

Original Court PDF

Aparna Prasanna SolevsState Of Maharashtra Thr Its Dept Of Ayurveda And Ors

Bombay High Court · June 23, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment