AMARCHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Amar Chand who held a degree of 'Ayurvedic Bhishak' of the All India Ayurvedic Vidyapeeth, Delhi, was appointed as Up-Vaidya in the Punjab Ayurvedic Department on March 3, 1961. On the reorganisation of the erstwhile composite State of Punjab he was allotted to the State of Punjab on 1st November, 1966. In April, 1972 he obtained the degree of Ayurveda Ratan. of the Hindi Sahitya Samellan, Prayag. He claims that though he was eligible to be promoted as Vaidya he was not so promoted while a number of persons who held similar qualifications were promoted in the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, to the post of Vaidyas against the 50% quota reserved for appointment by promotion. In June, 1972, it was alleged by the appellant, the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act was amended and a notification was also issued under the Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class III Technical) Service Rules, 1963, the effect of which was to deny to the appellant the right to be promoted to the post of Vaidya on the basis of the qualifications possessed by him. The contention of the appellant was that this action of the State Government altered the conditions of his service to his disadvantage and as it had been done without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government it was illegal, as it contravened the proviso to sub-sec. (6) of Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. The appellant alleged that without promoting him to the post of Vaidya, the Government had advertised five posts of Vaidyas to be filled up by direct recruitment. He, therefore, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus "commending the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion according to the principles of seniority cum merit strictly in accordance with service rules" and also for the issue of Writ of Prohibition " restraining the respondents from diverting the quota of the promotees towards direct recruits as is being done by the impugned advertisement."

(2.) On behalf of the respondents namely, State of Punjab and the Director, Health Services, Punjab (Ayurvedic Department), a counter-affidavit was filled in the High Court pleading that the so-called degree of Ayurvedic Bhishak was never recognised and that the appellant who was asked to supply the original or certified copy of the Ayurveda Ratan degree said to have been obtained by him in April, 1972, did not supply the same. The appellant did not possess the qualification of Ayurvedic Ratan in 1970 or in February, 1972, when the cases of Up-Vaidyas for promotion to the posts of Vaidyas were considered. It was also pleaded that the degree of Ayurveda Ratan was no longer a recognised qualification for appointment as Vaidya and, therefore, the petitioner could not claim promotion to the post of Vaidya on the basis of that qualification.

(3.) A learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the degree of Ayurveda Ratan was a sufficient qualification for promotion to the post of Vaidya before 1st November, 1966 and, therefore, under the proviso to Section 82 (6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, it was not permissible for the State Government to prescribe a different qualification so as to disentitle those holding the Ayurveda Ratan degree from being considered for promotion. On an appeal preferred by the State of Punjab and the Director of Health Services under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reversed the judgment of the learned single Judge on the ground that the prescription of a different qualification for promotion to the post of Vaidya was not violative of the proviso to S. 82 (6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act as the general approval of the Central Government had been granted by Memo No. F. No. 5/6/57/SR(S) dated 27th March 1957.