JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar, Shri J.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the Central Council of Indian Medicine and learned AAG for the State.

2. The dispute raised herein is with regard to the claim of promotion to the post of Reader and consequential promotional benefits which is being claimed by the petitioner with effect from the date he completes five years of experience after appointment as a Lecturer.

3. The writ petition filed came to be partly allowed and the learned Single Judge has extended the benefit of promotion to the petitioner considering his date of eligibility as 21.09.2010. It is this relief which has been limited with effect from 21.09.2010 that has been assailed before this Court by the appellant-petitioner contending that once the learned Single Judge was apprised of the status of qualification that was to be possessed for consideration of promotion, and which did not include Post-Graduation at that time, the said direction to limit the consideration of promotion treating his date of eligibility as 21.09.2010 is an error which deserves to be corrected.

4. We may put on record that this issue of qualification was being considered by the learned Single Judge before whom the Central Council of Indian Medicine was not a party-respondent in the writ petition. Realizing the impact of non-impleadment of a relevant party and the issue raised the Division Bench on 22.11.2018 passed the following order :

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the State.

The appellant had earlier filed L.P.A. No. 345 of 2017 which was disposed of on 25thApril, 2018 with liberty to the appellant to file a review petition before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, Review Application No. 185 of 2018 was preferred by the appellant, which was rejected on 12th September, 2018, whereafter the present appeal has been instituted.

The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the prescription relating to possession of the Postgraduate degree which came later on, would not in anyway affect the experience of five years possessed by the appellant as a Lecturer, so as to extend him the benefit that has been prayed for but the same has been declined by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the vacancy arose on 2nd March, 2011 and even otherwise the counting of the period of five years as claimed by the appellant would not be available as he has acquired Post-graduate qualification on 21st September, 2010.

Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the said observation of the learned Single Judge does not take notice of the circular issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, particularly the circular dated 4th September, 2008 filed along with the supplementary affidavit dated 23 rd April, 2014 before the learned Single Judge and even otherwise the learned Single Judge did not advert to the interim application which has been filed for impleading the Central Council of Indian Medicine. This has resulted in non-consideration of relevant material and consequently the appeal deserves to be allowed.

What we find is that the Central Council of Indian Medicine would be a necessary party in order to appreciate the aforesaid argument and since the appellant had already filed the application to that effect before the learned Single Judge on which no order had been passed, it would be appropriate to allow the appellant to implead the Central Council of Indian Medicine through its appropriate authority as a partyrespondent no. 8 within three days. Let necessary corrections be carried out.

It is also stated at the Bar by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the said Council is represented by a retainer Advocate before this Court. Let a copy of the appeal be served on the said Counsel within a week.

The matter shall be listed showing the name of the learned Counsel for the newly impleaded respondent no. 8 w