IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29657 of 2009(B)
1. DR.AJITHKUMAR.A.U,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. STATE MISSION DIRECTOR,NATIONAL
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NOs. 29657, 29658 & 29685 OF 2009
===============================
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
These writ petitions are filed by BHMS Graded Degree
holders. They claimed eligibility to be considered for the post of
Medical Officer, Homoeo in pursuance to Ext.P1, in WP(C)
No.29657/09, issued by the second respondent.
2. According to the petitioners, their Degree viz., BHMS
Graded is equivalent to that of BHMS(GD) prescribed in Ext.P1
and therefore they should also be treated as eligible candidates.
Petitioners in WP(C) No.29657/09 have also produced Ext.P3, an
order issued by the University equating BHMS Graded with BHMS
Direct Degree and they are also relying on Ext.P4 judgment in OP
NO.2726/03 and 5429/03 to support their contention.
3. In my view, the respondents cannot be faulted for the
view that the petitioners are ineligible. This is for the reason that
admittedly what the petitioners possess is BHMS Graded and
what is prescribed in Ext.P1 is BHMS Direct Degree. Unless the
recruitment rules for the post of Medical Officers, Homoeo equate
the post of BHMS Graded also with BHMS Direct, the petitioners
WPC Nos. 29657, 29658 & 29685/09
:2 :
who are possessing the former degree cannot claim eligibility to be
considered for the post.
4. In so far as Ext.P3, the University order referred to above is
concerned, even if the University has equated these two qualifications,
petitioners cannot claim any right based on the university oder, so
long as the Recruitment Rule do not contain any such equation.
5. In so far as the judgment referred to above relied on by the
counsel for the petitioners is concerned, a reading of para 2 of the
judgment shows that in that case, learned Government Pleader had
agreed to treat those having degree of BHMS Graded also as qualified
for the post of Tutor. There is no adjudication on the merits of the
controversy and therefore, the judgment is not of any assistance to the
petitioners.
6. Counsel for the State Mission Director, the 2nd respondent in
WP(C) NO.29657/09 also has brought to my notice judgment of this
Court in WP(C) NO.26901/09 where this Court has upheld the
competence of the said authority to prescribe qualifications. In view of
all the above, I am not inclined to agree with the petitioners.
Writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp