The Calcutta High Court has recently clarified that time spent on extraordinary leave for pursuing a super-specialty medical course does not count as teaching experience for academic promotion purposes. The ruling emphasizes that while extraordinary leave may be granted to faculty members for higher studies, such leave cannot substitute for the teaching and academic responsibilities that are explicitly required under statutory regulations for career advancement.
The case arose from a dispute involving an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pathology at ESI-PGIMSR. The respondent had been granted extraordinary leave from August 8, 2016, to August 7, 2019, to pursue a Doctorate of Medicine (DM) in Clinical Haematology, a super-specialty course. Upon completing her studies, she resumed her duties on August 8, 2019. However, when the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) published the promotion list on February 6, 2023, her name was not included. The DPC found that she did not fulfill the mandatory teaching experience requirement because the three-year period spent on extraordinary leave for her super-specialty course could not be counted toward experience qualifying for promotion.
Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which set aside the ESIC’s decision and directed the authorities to convene a review DPC to consider her promotion. The Tribunal had reasoned that extraordinary leave sanctioned for academic purposes should not be excluded from counting as qualifying service under the ESIC Recruitment Regulations, 2015. The Tribunal’s decision effectively treated the period spent on higher studies as a component of service eligible for promotion consideration.
The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order. The Calcutta High Court, in a bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, carefully examined the statutory framework governing academic promotions for medical faculty, particularly the regulations issued by the National Medical Commission (NMC). The Court noted that Regulation 3.11 of the NMC Teachers’ Eligibility Qualifications Regulations, 2022, clearly states that the period spent pursuing a super-specialty course cannot be counted as teaching experience for promotion purposes.
The Court observed that while the respondent had indeed been engaged in higher studies during her leave, she had not performed teaching duties during this period. Therefore, the three-year period of extraordinary leave did not fulfill the core requirement of teaching experience stipulated for academic advancement. The Court emphasized that academic promotions are contingent on demonstrated teaching and research experience, and time spent solely on study or research for higher qualifications, without teaching engagement, cannot substitute for such experience.
Consequently, the High Court upheld the Departmental Promotion Committee’s conclusion that the respondent did not meet the required teaching experience criteria. The ruling reinforces the principle that extraordinary leave for higher studies is intended to enhance qualifications and expertise but does not replace the statutory requirement of hands-on teaching experience for promotion.
This decision serves as a precedent for similar cases across academic institutions, ensuring uniform application of promotion rules. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing regulatory standards while distinguishing between advanced academic training and practical teaching experience. The ruling clarifies that while pursuing higher education is encouraged and commendable, faculty members must also fulfill their teaching obligations to qualify for career progression, maintaining the integrity and standards of medical education.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.