LexSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA versus LAXMIKANTE NANDA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, A SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA v. LAXMIKANTE NANDA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 16, 1993 B [KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWER DAYAL, JJ.] Service Law-Appointment-Whether doing away with the recognised qualification as prescribed under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 by resolution was violative of Ss. 15(2) & 15(3) thereof read with S.29(b) of C Tiie Orissa Homeopathy Act, 1956-Held-No. Service. Law-Selection-Whether total exclusion of the lecturers in Homeopathy, whereas earlier they were considered, for appointment as Deputy Director of Homeopathy is discriminatory or unfair-Held-No. • . D The Govt. of Orissa, Health and Family Welfare Department passed a Resolution on 15th Dec. 1986, whereby the criteria for selection of Deputy Director of Homeopathy in Class-I (senior) in the Directorate of India system of medicines and Homeopathy was refaxed Prior to the refaxation, persons who, apart from having recognised qualifications as prescribed E under. the Homeopathy Central Council Act 1973, had 2 years experience as C.M.O. or Inspector of Homeopathy or 10 years experience as lecturer in Govt. Homeopathy Medical College, were eligible for consideration for appointment to the aforesaid post. After refixation of Criteria only C.M.O. or Inspector of Homeopathy with 5 years experience could be considered Lecturers were totally excluded from consideration for the post of Deputy F Director. By a further Notification dt. 16th Dec. 1986, the resp. no. 2 before the Tribunal (earlier Chief Medical Officer, Homeopathy) was appointed as Deputy Director of Homeopathy on adhoc basis. 1 .1e respondents-surviving senior teachers in the Govt. Homeopathy College-as well as All Orissa Govt. Homeopathy Medical College Teachers G Association filed· an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the aforesaid Resolution dt. 15th Dec. 1986 and Notification dt. 16th Dec 1986. While the matter was pending before the Tribunal the resolution dt.' 15th Dec. 1986 was superseded by another Resolution dt. 25th Nov. 1987; by the last Resolution, the State Govt. H reaffirmed the Criteria reflxed in the Resolution dt. 15th Dec. 1986. As per 700 SECfETARYv. LAXMIKANTENANDA 701 the resolutions dt. ; ~th Dec. 86 and 25th Nov. 87 the requirement of A recognised qualifications was given up. The Tribunal held the impugned Resolution was violative of Sections . 15(2) and 15(3) of the Homeopathy Central Council, Act, 1973 read with Section 29(b) of the Orissa Homeopathy Act, 1956 as the Resolution does away with the recognised qualifications as prescribed under the Central B Act. The Tribunal also took the view that it was absolutely unfair on the part of the Govt. to Completely exclude lecturers in Medical College from considering them for promotion to the post of Deputy Director under the revised Criteria, when they continued to belong to the same cadre and no bifurcation of teaching cadre and peripheral cadre had taken place. C Aggrieved By the impugned Judgment or order the Appellants came in appeal by way of Special Leave. Allowing the Appeal, this Court HELD: l.The revised criteria as envisaged in the Resolution dated 15th December, 1986 and as specifically made clear in the Resolution dated 25th November, 1987 is not any way illegal or discriminatory and not in any way violative of the provisions of 1956 Act or the Central Act. [708-G-H, 709-A] 2. It is clear form the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Homeopathy Central Council Act itself that any medical qualification included in the Second or the Third Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrol- ment of any person on any State Register of homeopathy. Sub-section (2) D E of Section 15 makes it specifically clear that no person, other than a practitioner of Homeopathy who possesses a recognised medical qualifica- F tion and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Homeopathy - shall hold office as Homeopathic physician or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority. Thus no body·could be either Inspector or Chief Medical Officer, Homeopathy without having requisite · G qualification contemplated by section 15(2) of the Act. [708-A-C] 3. Once the holding of the requisite qualification is sine qua non for employees working as Inspectors and Chief Medical Officer, Homeopathy, there was no ne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.