Superannuation age of AYUSH faculty to be governed by NCISM regulations over inconsistent state rules.

The applicant, a qualified medical professional in Unani medicine, was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Amraz-e-Niswan wa Qabalat (Gynaecology & Obstetrics) at the Government Unani Medical College, Ganderbal.

His appointment was made under the J&K Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020 (S.O. 364), which stipulates a tenure of six years.

Under Rule 4 of S.O. 364, the retirement age for faculty in Unani Medical Colleges is set at 65 years.

However, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) issued a notification on 15-01-2026 amending Regulation 16(e) of the MSE-2022, enhancing the superannuation age of teaching faculty to 70 years.

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking parity with Allopathic Medical College faculty and the implementation of the 70-year retirement age.

1. Whether the NCISM Notification dated 15-01-2026, enhancing the superannuation age to 70 years, prevails over the age limit of 65 years prescribed under S.O. 364 of the J&K Medical and Dental Education Rules, 2020.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to continue in service until the age of 70 years based on the amended Regulations and judicial precedents.

Rule 4 of the J&K Medical and Dental Education (Appointment on Academic Arrangement Basis) Rules, 2020 (S.O. 364), which prescribes 65 years as the termination age for faculty in Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Colleges.

Regulation 16(e) of the NCISM Minimum Essential Standards Regulations (MSE-2022), as amended on 15-01-2026, which enhanced the superannuation age to 70 years.

Precedent set in North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr. Ram Naresh Sharma and others (AIR 2021 SC 3795), which addresses parity in retirement ages for different categories of medical doctors.

The Tribunal analyzed the conflict between the UT’s specific service rules (S.O. 364) and the central regulatory standards set by the NCISM.

The applicant argued that the NCISM Regulations, being the minimum essential standards for Indian systems of medicine, should prevail over inconsistent state/UT provisions.

The court observed that the petitioner was a "meritorious medical professional" selected via a "transparent and lawful process".

Rather than adjudicating the finality of the age limit immediately, the court focused on the petitioner's prayer for a time-bound administrative review, noting that the respondents did not object to treating the petition as a representation for extension in light of the new NCISM guidelines.

The respondents are ordered to consider the applicant’s case for extension of service in light of Regulation 16(e) of MSE-2022 and the cited Supreme Court law within six weeks.

As an interim measure, the Tribunal directed that the applicant's current service position shall not be disturbed until a decision is taken on the representation.

The applicant is bound to abide by the final decision taken by the respondents.