In a press release dated July 6, the National MSc Medical Teachers' Association (NMMTA) welcomed the reinstatement of the 30% appointment cap for MSc/PhD faculty in five non-clinical subjects, calling it a “decisive and inclusive policy change” that corrects the limitations imposed by the MSR-2020 guidelines.
"This correction brings a much-needed end to years of injustice that stemmed from the MSR-2020 guidelines, which had severely impacted the careers, livelihoods, and dignity of non-medical teachers while also aggravating faculty shortages in medical colleges across India..." read the official statement.
The National Medical Commission's (NMC) introduction of the Medical Institutions (Qualifications of Faculty) Regulations, 2025, brought clarity for non-medical professionals by including provisions for individuals holding MSc/PhD qualifications.
The association calls this a delivery of justice, given past incidents and protests against these non-medicos, who were considered unfit to teach medical students.
"Despite persistent hostility from a section of the medical fraternity and the UG Board of the NMC, the Ministry has stood by the principles of fairness and meritocracy, and we are deeply grateful for this decisive and inclusive policy change," the statement read.
Dr Sridhar Rao, a founding member of the NMMTA, lauded the decision and highlighted that these non-medical educators are equally qualified, having studied the same postgraduate curriculum as their medical counterparts.
However, Dr Rao raised these four unresolved concerns:
The regulations mention a “transition period” without clear details. Dr Rao said, “They have mentioned a transition period without explaining what it is. We are apprehensive that non-medical teachers would be appointed now when medical teachers are scarce, and the moment a medical teacher becomes available, the people already appointed would be sacked.”
He called for clarity in order to avoid treating non-medical faculty as a “stopgap arrangement”.
Tutors at medical institutions (MBBS holders) require only a graduate degree, while Demonstrators (MSc/PhD holders) need postgraduate and doctoral degrees for similar non-teaching roles.
Dr Rao called this "humiliating", stating, "For doctors, a graduate degree is deemed sufficient, but for non-medical individuals, not even a postgraduate degree would suffice, but a doctorate is mandatory."
Terming it as unfair, he said that such regulations degrade their knowledge and that "one cannot equate a graduate qualification with a doctorate qualification for the same non-teaching role.”
The NMC’s “on-campus” degree requirement incorrectly disqualifies part-time PhDs, which are valid under UGC guidelines.
Dr Rao clarified, “PhD is regulated only by UGC. The meaning of part-time could mean that one may be employed in an institution but registered with another institution to pursue a PhD while being employed."
He added that this was being misinterpreted as "part-time", and therefore, those who have pursued their research while being employed are rendered ineligible, which is against the set guidelines.
MSc/PhD faculty are barred from Head of Department (HoD) positions. Dr Rao criticised this, calling it “pride and prejudice at play”.
He noted, “The person who has worked as a professor for a decade would have understood every aspect of the department… Being a head of the department is an administrative role.”
He mentioned that this issue is currently before the Supreme Court, but urged the government to take action for a faster resolution.
Dr Rao also called for a 'permanent saving clause' to protect in-service faculty from future policy changes, stating, “We demand a 'saving clause' so that those who are already in service are not affected by any kind of prospective rules.”
