- (1.) Leave granted. Respondents 3 to 9 are trained Ayurvedic Compounders. They joined the State service between. 1962 and 1969 as such Compounders. The next promotional post is that of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari (Vaidya). Under the Himachal Pradesh Health and Family Planning Department Subordinate Class III Services (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "State Rules") which have been framed under Art. 309 of the Constitution, the essential qualification for promotion to the post of Vaidya is either (i) Vaidya Visharad which is a diploma course, with seven years' experience or (ii) Ayurveda Ratna which is a degree course, with five years' experience. The Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) for selecting candidates for the post of Vaidya met on 2nd December, 1977. Respondents 3 to 9 (hereinafter referred to as "respondents") were not selected on the ground that they did not have the required diploma/ degree from a recognised institution as required by the said Rules. Instead, their juniors were selected. The claim of the respondents is that in fact they had appeared for the examinations variously for Vaidya Visharad or Ayurveda Ratna held by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad (H.S.S) in 1974 and had obtained diplomas/ degrees of the said institution. According to the respondents, the H.S.S. was a recognised institution and, therefore, they were qualified to be promoted to the post of Vaidya. Hence, they filed a writ petition in the High Court which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. To the writ petition, the State as well as the promotees to the post of Vaidya were made parties.
(2.) Before the Tribunal, the stand taken by the appellant-State in Civil Appeal No. 3960/ 1992 arising out of SLP 12778/1992 and the promotee Vaidyas was that the degrees/ diplomas which are recognised as professional medical qualifications are listed in the Second Schedule to the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 (IMCC Act or the Central Act). The said Schedule mentions H.S.S. at serial number 105 in it, and specifies against it in column 4 thereof that its diploma/degree of Vaidya Visharad/Ayurveda Ratna which is acquired between 1931 and 1967 alone would be recognised as a professional medical qualification. Since, admittedly, the respondents had acquired their degrees/ diplomas in 1974, the same were not the recognised qualifications for the promotional post.
(3.) The Tribunal, however, held that 1974 Rules merely provided that degree/diploma should be from a recognised University/ Board of Indian system of medicines established by an enactment of State Legislature or an institute recognised by Central/State Government. Since the Director of Institutions for Higher Education issued by the ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India had shown in Section III thereof the H.S.S. as one of the recognised institutions of national importance under Acts of Parliament, it should be held that the degree/diploma given by the H.S.S. is one given by an institute recognised by the Central Government. The Tribunal also held that the IMCC Act of 1970 was made applicable to Himachal Pradesh only from 10th September, 1976 and, therefore, its provision that the diplomas/ degrees obtained from the H.S.S. during the period 1931 to 1967 alone were recognisable under the said Act, would be applicable to Himachal Pradesh only from that date and not earlier. The Tribunal, in this connection, relied upon the fact that the Register for enrolment of Vaidyas recognised under the Board of Ayurveda and Unani system of Medicines of Himachal Pradesh contained the name of one Amar Singh at serial number 526, although he had obtained the degree of Ayurveda Ratna from H.S.S. in 1971, i.e., after 1967. The Tribunal further held that S. 17 of the IMCC Act of 1970 only provided for enrolment of a qualified person on a State Register. Since, however, the appellants were already in .service, there was no question of their being enrolled in any State Register and as such Section 17 of the Act of 1970 did not apply to the respondents but applied only to direct recruits. The promotion, according to the Tribunal, as governed only by the State Rules of 1974. The Tribunal accordingly directed the State Government to convene a fresh D. P.C. to consider the case of the respondents for their suitability for promotion to the post of Vaidya on 'the said basis and if found suitable, to treat their promotion to the said post from the date their juniors were promoted to the post of Vaidyas. The Tribunal also directed that if the respondents were so promoted, they would be entitled to all the consequential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay etc. from their deemed date of promotion.;