01Facts
The petitioner, who holds an MBBS degree and an MD in Biochemistry, challenged the selection of private respondents for Assistant Professor (Biochemistry) posts, contending that non-medical candidates could be appointed only if medical candidates were unavailable
p. 1The selection followed an advertisement dated 19 February 2025, which adopted the academic qualifications in the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022
p. 2, 7The petitioner relied on a 2023 NMC notification stating that non-medical teachers could be appointed in Biochemistry only up to 15% of posts and subject to non-availability of medical teachers
pp. 3–4She also disputed the eligibility of respondents 6 and 8, including on the ground that they lacked a Master’s degree in relevant medical Biochemistry
p. 802Issues
i.1. Whether the 2023 NMC notification restricted the appointment of non-medical candidates as Assistant Professors in Biochemistry to cases where medical candidates were unavailable
pp. 3–6ii.2. Whether respondents 6 and 8 were ineligible for selection because they did not possess the requisite Master’s degree in relevant medical Biochemistry
pp. 8–1003Law Applied
Regulation 3.3 of the NMC’s Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022, permits non-medical graduates with the specified M.Sc. and Ph.D. qualifications in relevant subjects to be appointed as Assistant Professors in Biochemistry, without making their appointment conditional on the non-availability of medical graduates; it bars non-medical persons from specified leadership and administrative posts
pp. 4–5Clause 4 of Schedule II to the NMC’s 2023 guidelines provides for non-medical teachers in Biochemistry and certain other departments, up to 15% of posts and subject to non-availability of medical teachers; the Court treated that notification as concerning a different subject and applicable to new medical colleges established from Academic Session 2024–25
pp. 3, 6–7The Court also applied the principle that, in academic matters, the opinion of subject experts should be respected and a reviewing court should not sit in appeal over their assessment
p. 10Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
National Medical Commission Act, 2019 Section 24Section 26Section 28Section 29
04Reasoning
The advertisement referred to the 2022 Regulations, under which the Court found that suitably qualified non-medical candidates could be appointed as Assistant Professors without first establishing that medical graduates were unavailable
pp. 6–7The Court considered the 2023 notification inapplicable to the selection at issue, distinguishing it as a guideline concerning new medical institutions and undergraduate courses
pp. 6–7As to respondents 6 and 8, the selection board had considered their qualifications and supporting material, including NMC correspondence and academic and experience documents; the Court declined to substitute its view for that of the subject experts who found them eligible
pp. 8–1005Holding
The Court rejected both grounds of challenge, found no basis to interfere with the selection and appointment of respondents 6 to 11, and dismissed the writ petition
pp. 10–11The interim order dated 26 November 2025 was vacated, and pending applications were disposed of
p. 11Original Court PDF
RAVITA KUMARIvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
