Period Spent On Extraordinary Leave For Super-Specialty Course Can't Be Counted As Teaching Experience For Promotion: Calcutta HC

Background Facts

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Pathology at ESI-PGIMSR on a regular basis with effect from 26.05.2016. She had sought extraordinary leave to pursue a super-specialty course, DM (Clinical Haematology) from 08.08.2016 to 07.08.2019. She resumed her duties on 08.08.2019 upon completion of the course. She was transferred to the ESIC Medical College and Hospital on 09.11.2021.

As per the ESIC Recruitment Regulations, 2015, promotion to the post of Associate Professor requires five years of regular service as an Assistant Professor, subject to fulfilling the norms of the National Medical Commission (NMC). The NMC Regulations (2019) stipulate a requirement of four years of teaching and research experience as an Assistant Professor.

When a promotion list was published on 06.02.2023, respondent's name was omitted. She made a representation. The Director General, ESIC affirmed the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 02.02.2023. The DPC had found her unfit for promotion. It was held that she had spent three-year period on extraordinary leave for studies which could not be counted towards the mandatory teaching experience.

Aggrieved, respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the ESIC's order. It directed the authorities to convene a review DPC to consider her promotion. It was held that the regulations state that extraordinary leave for study purposes should not be excluded from qualifying service.

Aggrieved by the same, the ESIC filed the writ petition.

It was submitted by the petitioner, ESIC, that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the requirement under the 2015 Regulations is the completion of five years of regular service, as well as it is subject to fulfilling the teaching experience norms stipulated by the National Medical Commission (NMC). The petitioner relied on the NMC Regulations (2019), which mandated four years of teaching and research experience as an Assistant Professor. It was further contended that as per the Regulation 3.11 of the NMC Teachers' Eligibility Qualifications Regulations, 2022, the period spent towards acquisition of a super-specialty degree shall not be counted as teaching experience for promotion.

On the other hand, it was submitted by the respondent that as per Clause 3.11, it is obvious that exclusion of the period from teaching experience is only in the case of promotion in the concerned superspeciality department for which the superspeciality degree is acquired by the teaching faculty. The petitioner's faculty (pathology) is not a superspeciality and, therefore, the period spent on acquiring the superspeciality degree cannot be excluded.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the period spent on extraordinary leave for pursuing a super-specialty degree, even if sanctioned and treated as on duty, does not give teaching experience. It was further observed that the NMC Regulations of 2019 clearly require four years of teaching and research experience as an Assistant Professor for promotion to Associate Professor. It was emphasized that during the three-year period of academic studies, the respondent was not engaged in teaching duties and therefore did not accumulate the experience required by the regulations.

Regulation 3.11 of the NMC Regulations, 2022, was relied upon by the court which stated that time spent acquiring a super-specialty degree shall not be counted as teaching experience for promotion. The respondent's interpretation that it applies only to super-specialty departments was rejected by the court.

The Supreme Court judgment in V.B. Prasad vs. Manager, P.M.D. Upper Primary School was relied upon by the court wherein it was held that a period of study leave cannot be counted towards teaching experience for promotion. Further the case of Vivek Mudgil vs. State of U.P. was also relied upon wherein it was held that the period of study leave cannot be counted as teaching experience; where regulations prescribe 10 years of teaching experience as an essential qualification, a candidate with less experience cannot claim eligibility.

It was held by the court that the DPC correctly concluded that the respondent did not possess the mandatory teaching experience. It was concluded that the period spent on extraordinary leave for pursuing super-specialty courses cannot be counted towards mandatory teaching and research experience required for promotion. Consequently, the order passed by the Director General was found to be legal and valid. The Tribunal's order was held unsustainable and therefore, it was set aside.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner ESIC was allowed by the court.

Case Name : Dean in Charge, ESI-PGIMSR & Ors. vs. Dr. Bijita Dutta & Ors.

Case No. : W.P.C.T. 103 of 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Shiv Chandra Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents : Manujendra Narayan Roy, Biswarup Nandy, Rajesh Kr. Shah