A N SHASHTRI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are by special leave and are directed against two separate judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The first one is against the decision of the High Court in a writ application for quo warranto filed by respondents 2 to 4 while the second one is against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court challenging his reversion.

(2.) The short facts are that the appellant was appointed as a Professor of Ayurvedic Medicines under the Punjab Government. Later, he was appointed as Deputy Director from which post he was further promoted as Director. By Order dated 21-10-1981 he was reverted to the post of Deputy Director. On 31st October, 1987, the appellant has superannuated. The respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, once upon a time students of the appellant came before the High Court asking for a writ of quo warranto challenging the appellant's appointment as Director on promotion on the plea that he did not possess the qualification prescribed by the Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class. I and Class. II) Service Rules, 1963. Rule 6 of these Rules prescribes:-

(3.) The appellant opposed the writ application by contending that he possesses the requisite qualifications and, inter alia averred in the return made to rule that the petitioners before the High Court were his students and on account of ill motive, they had filed the application challenging the appointment of the appellant as Director. The State Government initially supported the appellant but later took a different stand. The High Court has found that the appellant possessed the second qualification, namely, that he had obtained the Doctor of Science Degree in Ayurvedic as prescribed. In regard to the first qualification, the High Court found that the appellant had a Degree in Ayurvedic system of Medicine from a recognised Institution and the degree that the appellant possesses has been duly recognised by the Government of Punjab, but it found that the appellant had not studied in regular course for five years to obtain the degree and, therefore, came to the conclusion that the requisite qualification was not possessed by the appellant. Accordingly, it allowed the writ petition and came to hold that the appellant was not qualified to hold the post of Director. When the question of challenge to the reversion came for consideration in the connected writ petition, the High Court took the view that since the appellant did not possess the first qualification, he was not entitled to the post of Director and was not entitled to challenge the reversion to the post of Deputy Director.