D. K. SETH, J. In these bunch of writ petitions a common question has been raised by all the petitioners. In all these cases an advertisement was published, for the post of chikitsa Adhikari in the department of Ayurvedic Bvam Unani Chikitsa Sewa, Lucknow. Thereby applications were invited for appointment on certain posts in the said department, prescribing qualifica tions that the candidates must have five years degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines from any recognised University in Uttar Pradesh established by law or five years degree or diploma of Aynrvedic and Unani recognised by the Indian Medical Council, U. P. 2. The main thrust was on the question that such a condition __ imposed amounts to unreasonable restriction in violation of principles of equal opportunity of employment as enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have obtained degree of Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicines and Surgery (hereinafter referred to as B. A. M. S.) from the Univer sity in Bihar, established by law. Therefore, the petitioners contended that it was an unreasonable restriction, by reasons whereof the petitioners have been precluded from being considered for the said posts and have thereby bees denied equality of opportunity for all citizens in the matters relating to employment on appointment to any office under the State. It was further contended that the said restriction does not come within the exceptions made in sub-articles (3), (4) and (5) of Article 16. 3. Though in all the cases counter-affidavits have not been filed but in few of these cases the State Government have filed counter-affidavits. It appears that in all the counter-affidavits identical statements have been made. The stand taken by the respondents are one and the same in all the cases where counter-affidavit have been filed. Therefore, the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 19556 of 1987 maybe taken as the stand taken by the respondents in all these cases. 4. It appears that in all the counter-affidavits identical statements have been made. The stand taken by the respondents are one and the same in all the cases where counter-affidavit have been filed. Therefore, the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 19556 of 1987 maybe taken as the stand taken by the respondents in all these cases. 4. In the counter-affidavit the respondents have relied upon Section 40 of the United Province Indian Medicine Act, 1939, which provides that only those Vaidyas or Hakeem, who has qualified himself or herself from an institution affiliated to the Board, who holds a degree in the Ayurvedic and Unani system of medicines from the University established by law in Uttar Pradesh shall be competent to hold the appointment of Medical Officer or other Medical Officers in Ayurvedic and Unani Hospitals. It was further contended that discrimination is based on the basis of residence within the State, the object of this classification underlining under this section and the rules were clearly to help those students who gets education from the institu tion established by State of U. P. and such classification is based on rational basis and is legitimate. It is open to the State Government to frame certain conditions regarding appointment or employment. Such conditions have been prescribed on the basis of Section 40 of United Province Indian Medicines Act, 1939 as amended in 1975. Rule framed under the said Act, being U. P. Subordinate Gazetted Services (Ayurvedic and Unani) Rules, 1964, also pres cribed similar qualifications in Rule 10 thereof. 5. The same question arose in the case of Ashok Kumar Verma v. State of U. P. , 1990 (2) UPLBEC 1024, decided by Honble M. P. Singh and Honble R. A. Sharma, JJ. , with the bunch of other cases. In that case an advertise ment was issued on 1-12-1984 containing following conditions : (i) A candidate must possess degree of Ayurvedic of Unani from University duly established in Uttar Pradesh. (ii) A candidates is registered as Vaidya and Hakim by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, U. P. Lucknow. (iii) A candidate has done his house job for six months from any Ayurvedic or Unani Hospital. 6. Whereas herein the fadvertisement the essential qualification required are; (i) 5 years Degree of Bachelor or Ayurvedic or Unani Medicine from any University in Uttar Pradesh established by law. (iii) A candidate has done his house job for six months from any Ayurvedic or Unani Hospital. 6. Whereas herein the fadvertisement the essential qualification required are; (i) 5 years Degree of Bachelor or Ayurvedic or Unani Medicine from any University in Uttar Pradesh established by law. Or Any 5 years degree or diploma of Ayurvedic/unani recognised by Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttar Pradesh. (ii) Registered as Vaidya/hakeem by the Bhartiya Chifcitsa Parished, Uttar Pradesh, (iii) House job or internships for 6 years as Chikitsak in a recognized Ayurvedic or Unani College, Hospital. 7. Thus it appears that the conditions imposed are similar except for a slight difference in the form of an alternative in condition No. (i ). It is clear that restriction has been imposed to the extent that: (i) only those candidates who possess a degree only from a University established by law in U. P. or degree or diploma of Ayurvedic/unani recognised by Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, U. P. (the latter alternative condition was absent in the earlier case), and (ii) registered as Vaidya/hakeem by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, U. P. 8. In the said case it was held that admittedly the course of B. A. M. S. in Bihar is similar to that of U. P. viz. "17. There is no dispute that syllabus and courses of study for B. A. M. S. in Bihar are exactly similar to that in Uttar Pradesh. Both the degrees are recognised by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi. This similarly has been practically admit ted in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. On account of this admitted position the petitioners claimed similar treatment for appointment as Medical Officers in Uttar Pradesh. 9. Both the degrees are recognised by the Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi. This similarly has been practically admit ted in paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. On account of this admitted position the petitioners claimed similar treatment for appointment as Medical Officers in Uttar Pradesh. 9. In the case of Ashok Kumar Verma (supra), Honble M. P. Singh, J. delivering the judgment, had referred to Section 40 of the U. P. Indian Medicines Act, 1939, which runs as under : "except with the special sanction of the State Government no person other than a Vaidya or Hakim or Surgeon or midwife who has qualified herself or himself from an institution affiliated to the Board, or other institution of the State recognised by the Board for the purposes, and is a domiciled resident of this State, shall be competent to hold an appointment as Medical Officer of health, or as physician, or surgeon or midwife or other Medical Officer in as Ayurvedic or Unani hospital, infirmary dispensary, or lying in hospital maintained by or under the control of the State Government or a local authority ; Provided that Vaidyas and Hakims in the employ of the State Govern ment or a local authority specified above on the date on which this Act comes into force shall continue to hold the said appoint ments. " 10. U. P. Subordinate (Gazetted) Medical Service (Ayurvedic and Unani) Rules, 1964 framed under U. P. Indian Medicines Act, 1939 provided qualifications in Rule 10 in the following manner : "10. Qualification.-Ho person shall be appointed to the service by direct recruitment unless he :- (i) possess one of the following qualifications: (a) a degree in Ayurvedic or Unani Tib of a University estab lished by law in Uttar Pradesh, or (b) five years degree or diploma in Ayurved or Unani Tib (BIMS or DIMS) of the Board of Indian Medicine, Uttar Pradesh. (ii) is registered as a Vaidya or a Hakim with the Board of Indian. Medicine, Uttar Pradesh, and (iii) possesses at least six months professional experience at an Ayurvedic or Unani Hospital or dispensary. " 11. Both the Section 40 and Rule 10 were challenged in the said case of Ashok Kumar Verma (supra) wherein their Lordships were of the view 3 "47. Medicine, Uttar Pradesh, and (iii) possesses at least six months professional experience at an Ayurvedic or Unani Hospital or dispensary. " 11. Both the Section 40 and Rule 10 were challenged in the said case of Ashok Kumar Verma (supra) wherein their Lordships were of the view 3 "47. After giving our careful consideration to the matter we are of the opinion that Rule 10 of the Subordinate (Gazetted) Medical Service (Ayurveda and Unani) Rules, 1964 and Section 40 of the U. P, Indian Medicine Act, 1939 excluding graduates from other State from being considered for the appointment of Medical Officers in Uttar Pradesh suffer from the vice of discrimination, arbitrariness and unreasonableness. They are hit by Article 16 of the Constitution. 48. Accordingly we allow the writ petition and quash the advertise ment dated 12-2-1984 and declare only that part of Rule 10 of the Subordinate (Gazetted) Medical Service (Ayurvedic and Unani) Rules, 1964 and part of Section 40 of the U. P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939 which impose restriction on the graduates from other Universities having same courses of study of B. A. M. S. degrees to be invalid. The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Medical Officers irrespective of the condition so imposed in the advertisement. If on the date of application the petitioners did not suffer from any disqualification on account of age that would not be a bar now. " 12. In the case of Union of India v. Sanjay Pant, AIR 1993 SC 1365 , it was held that requirement of residence in a particular territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, is opposed to Article 16 (2 ). Under Article 16 (3) of the Constitution only law made by the Parliament can impose such a restriction or requirement, as the case may be. 13. In the present case, admittedly, the Parliament has not made any such law. 14. The above judgment of Supreme Court supports the view taken in the case of Ashok Kumar Verma (supra) to the extent whereby it strikes down that part of Section 40 and Rule 10 which imposes restriction on the ground of domiciled resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 14. The above judgment of Supreme Court supports the view taken in the case of Ashok Kumar Verma (supra) to the extent whereby it strikes down that part of Section 40 and Rule 10 which imposes restriction on the ground of domiciled resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Their Lordships in the case of Ashok Kumar Verma (supra) bad derived support on the test of equality from cases of C. A. Rajendra v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 507 ; General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36 ; Shyam Sunder v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 212 ; All India Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters Association v. General Manager Central Railways, AIR 1960 SC 384 ; General Manager Central Railways v. A. V. R. Sidhanti, AIR 1974 SC 1755 ; G. P. Dobal v. Government of U. P. , AIR 1984 SC 1527 ; Miss Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1981 SC 1009 and Km. N. Bhasundra v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1439 . 15. In the present case the eligibility enumerated in the advertisement were described as mandatory. The only difference from the advertisement dated 1-12-1984 involved to the case of Ashok Kumar Verma (supra) is that another qualification in clause (i) was inserted, that too degree, diploma or Ayurved/unani recognised by Bbartiya Chikitsa Parishad, U. P. No material has been produced before the court as to whether Bhartiya Chlfcitsa Parishad, U. P. has recognised the degree or diploma of any other University outside the State. On the contrary the counter-affidavit proceeds that restriction was imposed with the object to benefit the candidates of the State and to restrict the opportunity only to such candidates. 16. However, from the English translation of the said advertisement supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it does not appear that any restriction was imposed on the ground of domicile/residents but the restriction as imposed clearly indicates that the candidate having requisite qualification from the Universities established by law outside the State of U. P. were precluded, particularly in absence of any material that Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad has recognised any such degree or diploma of any other University established by law, outside the State of U. P. 17. Section 40 of the U. P. Indian Medicines Act, 1939 and Rule 10 framed under the said Act, referred to above, having been declared hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution only to that part which imposes restric tion on the graduate from other University, having the same courses of studies of B. A. M. S. degree to be invalid, the conditions of such restriction as pleaded in the counter-affidavit is no more in existence in the said Section 40 and Rule 10 of the Rules. Therefore, in the advertisement issued in contrary to Section 40 and Rule 10 of the Rules. Though it appears that the conditions regarding domicile resident can also not be sustained but the same ig not required to be gone into, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, parti cularly, when the same has not been challenged in these writ petitions. 18. In view of the above, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned advertisement is quashed to the extent which imposed restric tion on the graduates from other University having the same course of studies of B. A. M. S. degree The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners if already applied for appointment to the posts, so advertised irrespective of the conditions so imposed in the advertisement. If on the date of application the petitioners did not suffer from any disqualification on account of age, that would not be a bar now. 19. There will be however, no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .