SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(HP) 481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh, JJ.
Dev Raj, S/o. Sh. Chet Ram - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Secretary (Ayurveda) To The Government Of Himachal Pradesh - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 7724 of 2021
Decided On : 15-09-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Vinod Thakur & Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocates General And Mr. Yudhbir Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General.

The main legal point established is that the Diplomas obtained by the petitioners from Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System prior to 2003 were valid and recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicines.

Headnote:

Ayurvedic Pharmacist - Recognition of Diplomas - Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1961, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 - The court discussed the recognition of Diplomas obtained by the petitioners from Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System prior to 2003, and held them to be valid as the said Institutes were duly recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicines.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought appointment as Ayurvedic Pharmacists and claimed that their Diplomas from Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System were valid. Respondent No. 2 contested, stating that the Diplomas were not recognized.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Diplomas obtained by the petitioners from Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System prior to 2003 were valid and recognized by the Central Council of Indian Medicines.

Issues: Recognition of Diplomas obtained by the petitioners from Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System prior to 2003.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine Act, 1961 and the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 to establish the validity of the petitioners' Diplomas.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed respondent No. 2 to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacists, if otherwise found eligible.

ORDER :

1. The above named petitioners have invoked the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following substantive relief:

“i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider and offer appointment to the petitioners on batch-wise basis for the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacist from the same date, when the persons junior on batch-wise basis will be offered appointments, in the interest of law and justice with all consequential benefits of pay, arrear, seniority etc.”

2. Factual position, as per the pleadings, is as under: The petitioners have obtained two years Diploma of Ayurvedic Pharmacy from different Colleges of Bihar, during the years 1995 to 2000, which are stated to have been affiliated with Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Patna, under Section 17 of the Bihar Development of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine Act, 1961.

3. After obtaining two years Diploma from Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, the petitioners got themselves registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Himachal Pradesh. The copy of the certificate of one of the petitioners issued by the Registrar, Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines, Himachal Pradesh has been placed on record as Annexure P-2.

4. Respondent No. 2, who is stated to be the Appointing Authority of the Ayurvedic Pharmacists, has issued an advertisement to fill-up the posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacists, on batch-wise basis. Consequently, call letters were issued to all the petitioners on 7th August, 2021, requiring them to appear before the Interview Board on 23rd August, 2021.

5. Thereafter, the documents submitted by the petitioners were sent for verification.

6. The petitioners have claimed that they all are in the top of the list, being the senior most, for the batch-wise recruitment. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the verification of their documents had earlier been done, at the time of their registration, by the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Himachal Pradesh. Now, the respondents have again wrongly submitted their documents for verification and on the basis of some verification, have deleted their names from the list of eligible candidates and as such, not offering them the letters of appointment, despite being the senior most persons in their relevant batch(es) and having the requisite qualification for the post.

7. Petitioners have also filed representation, dated 30th October, 2021 (Annexure P-5), before the respondents for redressal of their grievances, but, no decision is stated to have been taken so far, over the said representation.

8. In order to substantiate their case, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicine versus State of Bihar and others, 2007 (12) Supreme Court Cases 728.

9. Apprehending that the appointment letters will be issued to some other persons, excluding the petitioners, they have filed the instant writ petition, seeking the afore-quoted relief.

10. When put on notice, respondent No. 2 has contested the writ petition, mainly, on the ground that the Diplomas of the petitioners were not recognized by H.P. Takniki Shiksha Board/University recognized by the H.P. Government, and the same were sent to the Bihar State Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Council for verification, which, in return, vide letter, dated 21st October, 2021, has intimated that the recognition of the Institutes, from where the petitioners have obtained the Degree/Certificates, stands cancelled.

11. As such, it is the stand of respondent No. 2 that those institutes were not recognized, either by the Bihar Government or by the Government of India.

12. Heavily relying upon the said communication, received from the Bihar State Ayurvedic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top