Uttarakhand High CourtAdministrative and Public LawEducation Law

Uttarakhand HC Upholds Non-Medical Biochemistry Assistant Professors’ Selection: 2022 NMC Rules Don’t Require Medical Graduates To Be Unavailable first

RAVITA KUMARIv.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand HC Upholds Non-Medical Biochemistry Assistant Professors’ Selection: 2022 NMC Rules Don’t Require Medical Graduates To Be Unavailable first. RAVITA KUMARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND. Uttarakhand High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

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

The court held

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

It also directed

The interim order dated 26 November 2025 was vacated, and pending applications were disposed of

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. 1

The 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, 7

The 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. 3–4

She 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. 8

02Issues

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. 3–6

ii.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. 8–10

03Law 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. 4–5

Clause 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, 6–7

The 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. 10

Provisions 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. 6–7

The Court considered the 2023 notification inapplicable to the selection at issue, distinguishing it as a guideline concerning new medical institutions and undergraduate courses

pp. 6–7

As 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. 8–10

05Holding

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. 10–11

The interim order dated 26 November 2025 was vacated, and pending applications were disposed of

p. 11
Uttarakhand High Court

Original Court PDF

RAVITA KUMARIvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Uttarakhand High Court · October 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

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

Click to open original judgment