IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26901 of 2009(G)
1. DR,BEENA R., AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. DR.MAYA M.S.,AGED 37 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR,
3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
4. THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHY,
5. DIRECTOR OF HOMOEOPATHY, DIRECTORATE
For Petitioner :SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.M.AJAY,SC,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MIS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :25/09/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).26901/2009
--------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have acquired Diploma in Homeopathic
Medicines and Surgery conducted by the Board of
Examinations in Homeopathy, Government of Kerala. This is
evidenced by Exts.P1 and P2. Petitioners are registered
under the Travancore Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953,
as evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. The qualifications acquired
by the petitioners are included in the 2nd schedule of the
Homeopathic Central Council Act, 1973 and are therefore,
recognized diplomas.
2. The State Mission Director of the National Rural Health
Mission issued Ext.P5 notification inviting Homoeo and
Ayurvedic Medical Graduates for appointment in different
districts under the NRHM, on contract basis. It seems that
initially certain diploma holders were also included in the
rank list that was prepared, but later, on a complaint that
applications were invited from Homeo and Ayurvedic Medical
graduates and not from diploma holders, a verification was
done and non graduates were excluded from the list. It seems
W.P.(C).26901/2009
2
that the petitioners also were therefore, excluded from the
list. Petitioners contend that this process of verification was
undertaken with reference to Ext.P8 Government Order
dated 22.4.1995 wherein considering the recommendations of
the Central Council of Homeopathy, Government of Kerala
had ordered that medical qualifications in Homeopathy,
acquired after undergoing a course of four years’ duration,
awarded prior to the enforcement of Homeopathy (Diploma
Course) Regulations 1983, and included in the 2nd schedule of
the Homeopathic Central Council Act, will be treated as
equivalent to the degree in Homeopathy. Petitioners contend
that Ext.P8 is illegal inasmuch as the Government has
declared only such qualifications acquired prior to the
enforcement of the 1983 Regulations as equivalent to a
Degree. Petitioners contend that similar qualifications
acquired even after 1983, should be treated as equivalent to
the same. Hence the challenge against Ext.P8 on the ground
that it results in discrimination among similarly situated
persons. There is also a prayer for a direction to the NRHM
to consequently consider the petitioners also, as possessing
qualification equivalent to a Degree in Homeopathy and
include them in the list of Homeopathic Medical graduates
W.P.(C).26901/2009
3
for appointment to different posts under the NRHM.
3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners
Mr.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the NRHM Mr.M.Ajay and
learned Government Pleader.
4. The challenge against Ext.P8 is misconceived, in my
view. It is in fact by Ext.P8 order, Government has declared
certain non degree qualifications as equivalent to that of a
Degree in Homeopathy, provided such qualifications were
acquired prior to the enforcement of the Central
Regulations, 1983. Government had passed this order
accepting the recommendations of the Central Council of
Homeopathy. The order has not resulted in any unreasonable
classification among similarly situated persons. If the
petitioners also pray for a similar treatment, it is upto them to
see that the Central Council of Homeopathy makes a similar
recommendation. Government of Kerala had only accepted
the recommendations of the Central Council. The order only
grants a benefit to a certain class of people who otherwise
may not have been able to claim that their qualification should
be treated as equivalent to a Degree in Homeopathy.
W.P.(C).26901/2009
4
5. Even otherwise the NRHM is entitled to stipulate that
they need only graduates in Homeopathy and Ayurveda in
different posts. They are always entitled to insist that
persons with qualifications which might be treated as
equivalent by the Government or the PSC are not acceptable
and that only graduates be considered for appointment. The
challenge against Ext.P8 is therefore, misconceived in the
context of considering the prayer for a direction to the NRHM
to consider the petitioners also. If the NRHM insists on
degree holders, then they are entitled to see that only degree
holders should be appointed to posts forming part of the
National Rural Health Mission.
For all these reasons, I find no merit in the writ
petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs