A.N. SHASHTRIversusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

                                 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
    364                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [ 1988] 2 S.C.R.

    the pendency of the writ petition which he challenged in a connected
A
    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
B   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.
c         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           A
advert to this aspect. The petitioners-respondents were the once-upon-
a-time students of the appellant. Ordinarily one would except obliga-
tions, piety and reverence in their conduct towards the appellant, espe-
cially in the traditional system of Ayurved culture. Surprisingly that
seems to have been totally wanting. [369C I
                                                                            B
      2. Since the reversion of the appellant was grounded upon non-
possession of the requisite qualification the order of the High Court in
the connected writ petition cannot be sustained. [369F-G I

      3. The appellant shall be treated to have been regularly appoin-
ted as Director of Ayurved and to have been retired in that post, the       C
order of reversion notwithstanding. He shall he entitled to all the
benefits prescribed for the post of Director from the date he came to the
post till he retired. [369G-H]

      Statesman (Private) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 614,
referred to.                                                                D

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
8623-24 of 1983.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.1983 of the High Cot.rt
of Punjab and Haryana in Writ Petition No. 1794 of 1980.                    E

      P.P. Rao and P.D. Shanna for the Appellant.

     S.K. Bagga, C.M. Nayar, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, R. Karan-
jawala and Mrs. Meenakshi Arora for the Respondents.
                                                                            F
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      RANGANATH MISRA, J. These appeals are by special leave
and are directed against two separate judgments of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court. The first one is against the decision of the High
Court in a writ application for qua warranto filed by respondents 2 to 4 G
while the second one is against the dismissal of a writ petition filed by
the appellant before the High Court challenging his reversion.

       The short facts are that the appellant was appointed as a Profes-
 sor of Ayurvedic Medicines under the Punjab Government. Later, he
 was appointed as Deputy Director from which post he was further            H
    366                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A promoted as Director. By Order dated 21.10.1981 he was reverted to
  the post of Deputy Director. On 3 !st October, 1987, the appellant has
  superannuated. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, once upon a time              ~      1
  students of the appellant came before the High Court asking for a writ
  of qua warranto challenging the appellant's appointment as Director
  on promotion on the plea that he did not possess the qualification
B prescribed by the Punjab Ayurvedic Department {Class I and Class II)
  Rules, 1963. Rule 6 of these Rules prescribes:

                "No person shall be appointed to the service, unless he
                possesses such qualifications, if any, as are shown in col- . )
                umn 4 of Appendix 'A'."                                     --/'\
c   In Appendix 'A' there is only one post under Class I-that being the
    post of Director of Ayurved. The requisite qualifications for that post        -f..
    as provided in Appendix 'A' are the following:

                "(1) A degree (5 years or more of regular course) in
D                    Ayurvedic system of medicine of a Medical Board or
                     Faculty of Indian Medicine recognised by the
                     Government.

                 (2) Doctor of Science in Ayurvedic Medicine (Post
                     Graduate) of any recognised University.
E
                 {3) Must have worked as an Organisor in some Ayurvedic
                     Institution of repute such as Government Ayurvedic
                     Department in any State for a period of at least ten
                     years.

F                (4) Has conducted original research in Ayurvedic
                     Therapy.

                 (5) Must be an Ayurvedic Physician of at least 15 years
                     standing."

G   Challenge in the High Court was on the ground that the appellant did       ~
    not possess the prescribed qualifications under Items 1 and 2. The writ
    petition was filed soon after the appellant was promoted to the post of    _J.,_
    Director, and during the pendency of the writ petition the order of
    reversion as referred to above had been passed.

H         Tlte appellant opposed the writ application by contending that he
           A.N. SHASHTRI v. STATE OF PUNJAB [MISRA, J.]              367

possesses the requisite qualifications and, inter alia, averred in the      A
return mad~ to rule that the petitioners before the High Court were his
students and on account of ill motive, they had filed the application
challenging the appointment of the appellant as Director. The State
Government initially supported the appellant but later took a different
stand. The High Court has found that the appellant possessed the
second qualification, namely, that he had obtained the Doctor of            B
Science Degree in Ayurvedic as prescribed. In regard to the first quali-
fication, the High Court found that the appellant had a Degree in
Ayurvedic system of Medicine from a recognised Institution and the
degree that the appellant possesses has been duly recognised by the
Government of Punjab, but it found that the appellant had not studied
in regular course for five years to obtain the degree and, therefore,
came to the conclusion that the requisite qualification was not posses-
                                                                            c
sed by the appellant. Accordingly, it allowed the writ petition and
came to hold that the appellant was not qualified to hold the post of
Director. When the question of challenge to the reversion came for
consideration in the connected writ petition, the High Court took the
view that since the appellant did not possess the first qualification, he   D
was not entitled to the post of Director and was not entitled to
challenge the reversion to the post of Deputy Director.

      We shall first deal with the appeal arising out of the quo
warranto proceedings. The first qualification which we have referred
to above appears to be a common qualification for almost all the ranks      E
covered by Appendix 'A', namely, that a degree should have been
obtained after five or more years of regular course having been gone
through. No dispute has been raised to the appellant's appointment as
Deputy Director. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents who
had petitioned the High Court pointed out with reference to the cor-
respondence with the State Public Service Commission that in regard         F
to the qualification for the post of Deputy Director, a degree or
diploma was considered sufficient. The State Public Service Commis-
sion had raised objection to the Government's proposal of fixing the
degree qualification by pointing out that since a degree after studying
for five or more years of regular course was the requirement for the
higher post of Director, a lesser qualification should be prescribed for    G
the post of Deputy Director and accordingly the alternates had been
adopted. When we pointed out to her that for the post of Assistant
Director-it cannot be disputed that Deputy Director's is a superior
post-the requirement was five years or more of regular course in
Ayurvedic with a diploma, there was really no answer. We would
accordingly hold that the High Court should have looked into this           H
    368                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A aspect to find out what exactly was the requirement. In view of the fact
  that there was no challenge to the appointment of the appellant to the
  post of Deputy Director and the first item of the qualification is the
  same for the Director as also the Assistant Director and as Deputy
  Director, the appellant held a post between the two, we are not impre-
  ssed by the stand of the respondents that the appellant was not posses-
B sed of the requisite qualification. There is no dispute that the appellant
  had been serving as Professor for several years. The requisite qualifi-
  cation for that post as per Appendix 'A', as far as relevant is:

               "A Degree (five years regular course) in Ayurvedic system
               of Medicine of a recognised University, or of a board of
               Indian System of Medicine established by law or from any
c              Ayurvedic College recognised by Government."

  As far as this qualification goes, there is indeed no difference in the       .,..
  case of a Professor and that of Director. In giving appointment to the
  appellant as Professor, it must follow that Government were satisfied
D that appellant had the requisite qualification.

        There is material on record to show that in regard to the degree
  obtainable on completion of the five year course, the appellant had
  read as a regular student for three years in the first instance and for the     _.
  remaining two years he was directly under a qualified Professor though          -..,
E it was not study in a regular institution. After reading for five years he
  has obtained the degree which has been from a recognised University.
  In the circumstances, it has become difficult to agree with the reasons
  given by the High Court for its conclusion that the appellant was not
  having the requisite qualification prescribed under the Rules.

F        Mr. Rao, counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this
    Court in Satesman (Private) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR
    614 at page 621 of the Reports, Hidaytullah, CJ. speaking for the
    Constitution Bench indicated:

               "The High Court in a quo warranto proceeding should be
G              slow to pronounce upon the matter unless there is a clear
               infringement of the law"

    It the circumstances which we have narrated, it is indeed difficult to
    hold that the appellant did not have the requisite qualificatiou.

H         A yurveda is the traditional method of medical attention preva-
           A.N. SHASHTR! v. STATE OF PUNJAB [MISRA, J.[             369

lent in this country. Modem science and people associated with the          A
medical faculties of the modern age have gradually accepted the posi-
tion that Ayurveda provided a fully developed medical process. In the
post medieval India the system had suffered a set back but in recent
years, the Ayurved system has been revived. In the post-independence
period, the system has been accepted as a regular course of study and
recognised as a system of therapy. The High Court should have given         B
due consideration to the background and the history of ihe matter.
      There is clear material that the petitioners before the High Court
were the once-upon-a-time students of the appellant. Ordinarily one
would expect obligations, piety and reverence in the conduct of the
writ petitioners towards the appellant. This expectation would be
more justified in the traditional system of Ayurved culture. Surpris-       c
ingly that seems to have been totally wanting. The appellant has, on
the other hand, alleged that the writ petition was the outcome of
malice and ill will. The High Court did not appropriately advert to this
aspect.
      We are of the view that in the facts of this case, the reasonable     D
conclusion to reach should have been that the writ petitioners had
failed to establish that the appellant did not possess the requisite
qualification. The appeal has, therefore, to be allowed, the judgment
of the High Court has to be set aside and the writ petition has to be
dismissed with costs.
                                                                            E
       Now we come to the appeal challenging the reversion. The writ
petition has been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant was
not possessed of the requisite qualification and, therefore, was not
entitled to continue as Director. Now that we have reversed the find-
ing or'the High Court on that score, the judgment of the High Court
cannot be sustained. Reversion as admitted by the State Government
                                                                            F
in its counter in the High Court was grounded upon non-possession of
the requisite qualification. With our finding in the connected appeal.
the order of the High Court cannot be sustained. Nor can the order of
reversion be. The other appeal too is allowed with costs. The appellant
shall be treated to have been regularly appointed as Director.and shall
be treated to have retired in the post of Director-the order of rever-      G
sion notwithstanding. He shall be entitled to all the benefits prescribed
for the post of Director from the date he came to the post till he
retired. All his dues shall be paid to him within three months from
today. Consolidated hearing fee of Rs.5 ,OOO is allowed to the appellant
and this shall be paid by the respondent-State alone.
P.S.S.                                                 Appeals allowed.     H