JUDGMENT

 This is an appeal from a. decision of the High Court of Orissa which allowed the claim of the respondent for appointment as a Medical Officer in Homoeopathic Dispensary.

2. The respondent is a registered Homoeopathic Practitioner within the meaning of S. 21 of the Orissa Homoeopathic Act, 1956 which is hereinafter referred to as the "State Act". There is also a Central enactment called Homoeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 (Act No. 59 of 1973) on the same subject, which is hereinafter referred to as the "Central Act. "

3. The respondent was originally holding the post of Distributor and thereafter he was appointed as Medical Officer in a Homoeopathic Dispensary. After coming into force of the Central Act, the respondent was reverted to his original post of Distributor. The reversion was based perhaps on the ground that the respondent was not duly qualified to hold the post of Medical Officer in the dispensary in view of the bar imposed either by the Central Act or by the State Act. The validity of reversion was challenged before the High Court by means of a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. There were several other petitions filed by the similarly reverted persons. The High Court in those petitions (See: OJC No. 1916/77, 12/78 and 531/ 78) disposed of on March 21, 1981 gave a considered judgment expressing the view that a registered homoeopathic practitioner like the respondent is not ineligible for appointment as Medical Officer in Homoeopathic Dispensary. In that judgment, the High Court directed the State Government to review the cases of the reverted Medical Officers. Following the judgment the respondents writ petition was also allowed in terms thereof.

4. The State being aggrieved by the High Court decision has appealed to this Court.

5. The Central question for consideration is whether the registered Homoeopathic practitioner who has not qualified himself from an institution established. or recognised by the Homoeopathic Board shall be ineligible either under the State Act or under the Central Act for being appointed as Medical Officer of any State Homoeopathic dispensary? S. 2(i) defines registered Homoeopathic practitioner to mean a Homoeopathic practitioner registered as such under S. 21. S. 21(1) refers two categories of Homoeopathy practitioners; (i) Registered Homoeopathic practitioner; and (ii) Listed Homoeopathic practitioner. We are not concerned with the later category, we are duly concerned with the former category. 21(2) furnishes the requirements to qualify oneself to become a registered Homoeopathic practitioner. It is not in dispute that the respondent is one of such registered Homoeopathic practitioners.

6. With these undisputed facts, we may now consider the scope of Ss. 29(b) and 43 of the State Act and S. 15 of the Central Act. S. 29(b) of the State Act reads:

"29. Registered practitioners certificate-

Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force-

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(b) a registered homoeopathic practitioner shall be eligible to hold any appointment as a Medical Officer in any dispensary, hospital, infirmary or lying-in-hospital supported by or receiving a grant from the State Government or any local authority and treating patients according to the homoeopathic system of medicine;

7. Section 43 of the State Act, so far as relevant provides:

"43. Reservation of certain appointment to registered Homoeopathic Practitioners who have qualified themselves from institutions established or recognised by the Board :- Except with the special sanction of the State Government no Homoeopathic Practitioner, other than a registered Homoeopathic Practitioner who has qualified himself from an institution established or recognised by the Board, shall be competent to hold an appointment as Medical Officer of health, or as physical or other medical officer in a Homoeopathic hospital maintained or aided by the State Government or any Local authority."

8. Section 29(b) states t