A.N. SHASHTRI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 11-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A.N. SHASHTRI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
DECEMBER 11, 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MORON DUTT, JJ.] 
B 
'"' 
Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class I and Class II), Rules, 
1963: Rule 6-Promotion as Director of Ayurved-Requisite qualifica-
l 
tion for promotion post same as that for the feeder post-Appointment 
to feeder post not challenged-Held promotion unassailable. 
Constitution of India, Article 226: Malicious writ of quo war- c 
~ 
ranto-Court to take notice of-Having regard to background and 
history of the case . 
.., 
Civil Services-Reversion on wrong ground and subsequent 
superannuation-Employee to be treated as regularly appointed to and 
D 
retired in the promotion post. 
Rule 6 of the Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class I and Class II) 
Rules, 1963 interdicts appointment to the service except duly qualified 
persons. The requisite qualification laid down by Appendix 'A' to the 
Rules for Class I post of Director of Ayurved includes (I) a five years' 
E 
degree course in Ayurvedic system of medicine, and (2) Doctor of 
Science in Ayurvedic Medicine. For the posts of Professor, Assistant 
Director and Deputy. Director of Ayurved the requisite qualification is a 
five years regular course in Ayurvedic system of medicine. 
The appellant had read as a regular student for three years In the 
F 
first instance, and for the remaining two years he was directly under a 
qualified, Professor. He had then obtained a degree from a recognised 
University. Later he acquired the Doctor of Science Degree in Ayurved. 
He was appointed as a Professor of Ayurvedic Medicine under the 
Punjab Government and later as Deputy Director. He was further 
• 
promoted as Director. 
G 
-~ 
His appointment as Director was challenged for lack of requisite 
qualification in a writ of quo warranto by respondents, 2, 3 and 4. In 
the return made to rule he averred that the petitioners-respondents, his 
one time students, had filed the application on account of ill motive. He 
was reverted to the post of Deputy Director on October 21, 1981 during 
H 
363 
A 
B 
c 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 2 S.C.R. 
the pendency of the writ petition which he challenged in a connected 
writ petition. he superannuated from the post of Deputy Director on 
October 31, 1987. 
The High Court held that the appellant was not qualified to hold 
the post of Director since he had not studied in a regular course for five 
years to obtain the degree, thou~h it found that he possessed the second 
qualification, namely, Doctor of Science Degree, and a degree in 
Ayurvedic system of medicine duly recognised by the Government of 
Punjab. Consequently, in the connected writ petition the High Court 
took the view that he was not entitled to challenge reversion to the post 
of Deputy Director. 
Allowing the appeals with costs, 
HELD: 1.1. The writ petitioners have failed to establish that the 
appellant did not possess the requisite qualification. In fact he had read 
~ 
as a regular student for three years in the first instance and for the 
D remaining two years he was directly under a qualified Professor. After 
reading for five years he had obtained the degree which has been from a 
recognised University. [368E] 
1.2 The appellant had been serving as Professor for several years. 
As far as the qualification goes there is no difference in the case of a 
E Professor and that of a Director. In giving appointment to the appellant 
as Professor, the Government must have been satisfied that he had the 
requisite qualification. [368B] 
1.3 There was no challenge to the appointment of the appellant to 
~,
the post of Deputy Director, The first item of the qualification is the 
F 
same for the Director as also the Assistant Director and the Deputy 
Director. The appellant held a post between the two. The High Court 
should have looked into this aspect to find out what exactly was the 
requirement. [368D; A] 
1.4 The High Court should have given due consideration to the 
G background and the history of the matter, Ayurveda is the traditional 
• 
method of medical attention. In the post-medieval India the system had 
suffered a set back but in the post-independence period it has been 
~-
accepted as a regular course of study and recognised as a system of 
therapy. [369B; 368Hl 
H 
1.5 The appellant has alleged that the writ petition was the out-
A.N. SHASHTRJ v. STATE OF PUNJAB [MISRA, J.] 
365 
come of malice and ill will. The High Court did not appropriately 
advert 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.