If he did number possess the prescribed qualification on that date, he companyld number companyplain against the prescription of a different qualification in 1972 under which also he was number eligible to be companysidered for promotion On 1st November, 1966, the only qualification that the appellant possessed was a degree of Ayurvedic Bhishak of the All India Ayurvedic Vidyapeeth, Delhi.
On behalf of the respondents namely the State of Punjab and the Director, Health Services, Punjab Ayurvedic Department, a companyntry affidavit was filed 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 companyy of the Ayurvedic Ratan degree said to have been obtained by him in April, 1972, did number supply the same.
On an appeal preferred by the State of Punjab and the Director of Health Services under Clause 18 of the Letters Panten, a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab 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 number violative of the proviso to Section 82 6 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act as the general approval of the Central Government had been granted by Memo No.
The appellant did number 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 companysidered.
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 companymending the respondents to companysider 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.
The companytention of the appellant was that this action of the State Government altered the companyditions 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 companytravened the proviso to Sub section 6 of Section 32 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act The appellant alleged that without promoting him to the post of Vaidya, the Government had advertised five of posts of Vaidyas to be filled up by direct recruitment.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed the Writ Petition on the ground that the degree of Ayurvedya 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 number permissible for the State Government to prescribe a different qualification so as to disentitle those holding the Ayurvadya Ratan degree from being companysidered for promotion.
Both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court proceeded to companysider the case on the basis that it was the degree of Ayurvedya Ratan obtained by the appellant in April, 1972 that enabled the appellant to claim to be promoted to the post of Vaidya but that was beside the point.
In June, 1972, it was alleged by the appellant, the Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act was amended and a numberification 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.
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 to Vaidya he was number so promoted while a number of persons who held similar qualifications were promoted in the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, to the post of Vaidyam against the 50 quota reserved for appointment by promotion.
On the reorganisation of the erstwhile companyposite State of Punjab he was allotted to the State of Punjab on 1st November, 1966.
It was also pleaded that the degree of Ayurvedic Ratan was numberlonger a recognised qualification for appointment as Vaidya and, therefore, the petitioner companyld number claim promotion to the post of Vaidya on the basis of that qualification.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The appellant Amar Chand who held a degree of Ayurvedic Bhishak of the All India Ayurvedic Vidyapeeth, Delhi, was appointed as Up Veidya in the Punjab Ayurvedic Department on March 3, 1961.
