JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. Appellants are the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 293 of 2016 (S/S). They purported to do a Diploma in Pancha Karma from the Uttarakhand Open University through distance mode. They were not, however, registered with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. It appears that there was an earlier writ petition as Writ Petition No. 1866 of 2013 (MS), along with certain connected matters before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of with certain directions. Relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:- “10. According to the University, there is no provision for registration of a “Panchkarma Assistant” with the Indian Medical Council. The persons entitled to be Registered under Section 27 of the Act are such persons who have qualifications mentioned in the Schedule to the Act. The Schedule to the Act reads as follows:- “Persons who are entitled to have their names entered in the register of Vaidyas and Hakims- 1. Vaidyas or Hakims who hold a degree or certificate of any Government Ayurvedic or Unani college or school within the Uttar Pradesh or outside it, or a degree in Indian medicine or surgery or midwifery of any University established by law in India. 2. Vaidyas and Hakims who hold a degree or diploma granted by the Board. 3. Vaidyas or Hakims who have passed an examination from any Ayurvedic or Unani Institute in the Uttar Pradesh or outside it recognized by the Board for purposes of registration.” 11. Hence, a bare reading of the above provision, would make it clear that only “Vaidyas” and “Hakims,” who hold a degree or certificate from any Government Ayurvedic or Unani college or school are entitled to be registered. Since the petitioners are neither “Vaidyas” or “Hakims” but merely paramedicals, they are not to be registered. This seems to be the position as it exists today. 12. This Court, therefore, has no difficulty in holding that registration of “Panchkarma Assistants”, who are in the nature of paramedicals in Ayurvedic Sciences, is not mandatory before respondent no. 4 (Chairman, Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad), since this is not a requirement of law. All the same, if respondent no. This seems to be the position as it exists today. 12. This Court, therefore, has no difficulty in holding that registration of “Panchkarma Assistants”, who are in the nature of paramedicals in Ayurvedic Sciences, is not mandatory before respondent no. 4 (Chairman, Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad), since this is not a requirement of law. All the same, if respondent no. 4 (Chairman, Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttarakhand) is registering other Panchkarma Assistants who have done their Course from other places than the Uttarakhand Open University then it may amount to a discrimination against the petitioners, if otherwise they have done a valid Course. 13. Nevertheless the fact remains that the Course “Panchkarma Assistant” has to be recommended or approved by respondent no. 4, as such powers vest with it under Section 36 and 37 of the Act. Section 36(2) reads as follows:- “36. Powers and duties of the Board.-The Board shall have the following powers and duties, namely,- (1) to advise the State Government in matters relating to Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbi systems of medicine including research and post graduate education; (2) to accord, suspend or withdraw, on the recommendations of the Faculty, recognition to training centres imparting instruction in para-medical courses; (3) ……………………………………………; (4) ……………………………………………; (5) ……………………………………………; (6) ……………………………………………; (7) ……………………………………………; (8) ……………………………………………” 14. The Government of Uttarakhand has also passed an order dated 21st January, 2011, whereby Registration, Regulation, Control including what kind of curriculum are to be taught has been given. In this way, the Course of “Panchkarma Assistant” which though done by the Open University, could have been a valid Course only if it had a prior sanction of the respondent no. 4. In the absence of this sanction, there is always a question mark on the Course advertised and done by the Open University. In the absence of a recognition, as sanctioned, by the respondent no. 4 (Chairman, Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttarakhand) there shall always be an infirmity with the Course. 15. However, what is at the stake here is the career of such students who have undergone and spent one year in pursuing this Course. Moreover, this Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the Course, though, not recognized or approved by the respondent no. 4, is still a Course approved by the Distance Education Council, which is under the University Grants Commission. Moreover, this Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that the Course, though, not recognized or approved by the respondent no. 4, is still a Course approved by the Distance Education Council, which is under the University Grants Commission. Further it is not a private body which has undertaken to educate people under this branch. It is a State Open University with His Excellency the Governor as its Chancellor. Finally there is presently a disagreement between which two bodies: a State Government body as against a State University! It is for this reason in order to resolve this issue, the following order are being passed. 16. It is directed that the Principal Secretary, Health Government of Uttarakhand, in consultation with the Controller of the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Dehradun shall take a decision on the validity of the Course being done by the petitioners and, in case, they come to a conclusion that the curriculum, activities and the practical training of the petitioners is up to the standards set by them, then they may take a decision of granting such an approval to the petitioners, and subsequently register them with the Board if other such students from other sources are being registered. In the event they come to the conclusion that the Course done by the petitioners is not up to the standard, they may still explore possibilities of conducting a fresh course for a duration which they may deem fit, so that, the petitioners become eligible or become up to the mark. However, if ultimately they come to the conclusion that this cannot be done and under no circumstances a validity can be given to the Course of the petitioners, they may do so by recording reasons. In that event, the petitioners would be at liberty to take a recourse or any suitable action against the Open University in accordance with law, including a recourse for compensation or for the loss which they have suffered. 17. While taking a decision, the Principal Secretary and the Controller shall give a hearing to the representative of Open University as well as one or two representatives of the petitioners, so that they may place their case before them. 18. Let a decision be taken within a period of 8 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. 19. 18. Let a decision be taken within a period of 8 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. 19. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. There has been no order as to costs.” 2. Pursuant to the same, the Government took a decision and the appellants, apparently, were called upon to do what is called the ‘bridge course’. They did their bridge course, and it is, thereafter, that they were registered with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. Subsequently, they filed the present writ petition. The prayer in the same was as follows:- “Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to consider the main diploma obtained by petitioners from year 2010 to 2012 in the instant selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 8.1.2016 for the purposes of counting seniority and marks obtained by them in the said course.” 3. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in the case and dismissed the writ petition. 4. We heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shailendra Nauriyal, Sri Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, Sri Shivanand Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. We also heard Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the interveners, whose application for intervention was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 1st August, 2016. 5. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants did their course conducted by the Uttarakhand Open University and obtained Diplomas, which are dated 2010-2011, after undergoing a one-year course. He would rely on Rule 15(5) of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Panchkarma Sahayak (Panchkarm Technician) Service Regulation 2015, the translation of the same, which is made available to us across the Bar, reads as follows:- “15. (1). … (2). … (3) … (4) … (5) The Selection Committee will prepare a list of candidates in order of merit as disclosed the marks obtained by them on the basis of year of passing the Diploma. In case marks of two and more candidates are calculated equal than selection committee will place their name in order of merit of general suitability. … (3) … (4) … (5) The Selection Committee will prepare a list of candidates in order of merit as disclosed the marks obtained by them on the basis of year of passing the Diploma. In case marks of two and more candidates are calculated equal than selection committee will place their name in order of merit of general suitability. The said list will contain the names of the candidates more than vacancies (but it will not exceed 25% of the vacancies), and as such the list as prepared will be valid only for one year.” 6. He would, therefore, submit that on the basis of the same, the eligibility must be determined with reference to the year of passing the Diploma. The year of passing the Diploma in respect of the appellants is 2010-2011. However, the complaint is that in violation of the said Regulation, on the basis of the developments, which have taken place apparently, the appellants are being superseded by the candidates, who have obtained their Diplomas afterwards; this is clearly impermissible and being illegal. 7. Per contra, Sri Subhash Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the interveners, would submit that all that has happened in between their obtaining Diploma and their registration with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad cannot be ignored as they are relevant, and they will reveal a different picture. He would submit that pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge in the earlier round, the Government took the following decision dated 28.03.2014. We refer to the English translation of the said decision and extract the same as the same is relevant for the purpose of our case:- “UTTARAKHAND GOVERNMENT Ayush and Ayush Education Section No. 535/55 (writ)/2013 Dehradun dated 28th March, 2014 Order In pursuance to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Nainital in writ petition no. 1866 (MS)/2013 a representation of petitioner Shri Diwakar Prasad Matiyal dated 7-1-2014 with certified copy of the order referred above of Hon’ble High Court along with enclosures was received. The operative portion of the Hon’ble High Court order is as follows: “16. 1866 (MS)/2013 a representation of petitioner Shri Diwakar Prasad Matiyal dated 7-1-2014 with certified copy of the order referred above of Hon’ble High Court along with enclosures was received. The operative portion of the Hon’ble High Court order is as follows: “16. It is directed that the Principal Secretary, Health, Government of Uttarakhand, in consultation with the Controller of the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Dehradun shall take a decision on the validity of the course being done by the petitioners and, in case, they come to a conclusion that the curriculum, activities and the practical training of the petitioners is up to the standards set by them, then they may take a decision of granting such an approval to the petitioners, and subsequently register them with the Board if other such students from other sources are being registered. In the event they come to the conclusion that the Course done by the petitioners is not up to the standard, they may still explore possibilities of conducting a fresh course for a duration which they may deem fit, so that the petitioners become eligible or become up to the mark. However, if ultimately they come to the conclusion that this cannot be done and under no circumstances a validity can be given to the Course of the petitioners, they may do so by recording reasons. In that even, the petitioners would be at liberty to take a recourse or any suitable action against the Open University in accordance with law, including a recourse for compensation or for the loss which they have suffered. 17. While taking a decision, the Principal Secretary and the controller shall give a hearing to the representative of Open University as well as one or two representatives of the petitioners, so that they may place their case before them. 18. Let a decision be taken within a period of 8 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them. 2. In compliance of the above referred order, a meeting was held on 7-3-2014. In the said meeting the representatives of the Uttarakhand Open University (UOU) could not provide information regarding the syllabus of the Panchkarm course and the requisite essential qualification required for the said course. 2. In compliance of the above referred order, a meeting was held on 7-3-2014. In the said meeting the representatives of the Uttarakhand Open University (UOU) could not provide information regarding the syllabus of the Panchkarm course and the requisite essential qualification required for the said course. Apart from that the alleged representatives of the petitioner Shri Umesh Chandra Yadav and Shri Subhash Chandra Bhatt also could not provide the relevant documents and evidence regarding the matter. It is also relevant that only one petitioner Shri Diwakar Prasad Matiyal had nominated them as representative. It was, as such, decided that all petitioners should be invited on 26-3-2014 at 11:00 AM at Uttarakhand Open University, Haldwani to submit their claim. For that an advertisement was issued in news paper for providing information to every petitioner. 3. On 26-3-2014, at 11:00 AM, 45 petitioners appeared at the Uttarakhand Open University, Haldwani and they nominated Shri Subhash Chandra Bhatt and Shri Diwakar Prasad Matiyal as their representative. Uttarakhand Open University authorised Dr. R.C. Mishra, Director, Management Studies to submit its claim. Apart from the above referred, the following officers/persons were present at the time of hearing:- (1) Dr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Registrar, Uttarakhand Ayurved University, Dehradun. (2) Shri B.D. Maithani, Registrar, Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. (3) Shri L.S. Rawat, Registrar, Uttarakhand Open University, Haldwani. (4) Prof. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Principal, Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College, Haridwar. …….Technical expert. (5) Dr. J.N. Nautiyal, Member, Board of Trustee. (6) Prof. Radha Ballabh Sati, Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College, Haridwar. (7) Dr. Shyam Singh, Joint Director, Ayurvedic. (8) Dr. Dharmendra Payal, Under Secretary, Uttarakhand Government. 4. A copy of the comparative details of the prescribed standards for Panchkarma Assistant, syllabus prepared under the joint signatures of Registrar, Bhartiya Chikitsa Parisahd and Registrar, Uttarakhand Open University was provided to each party. Thereafter, they were heard. The representative of the petitioner submitted that they are not guilty and looking into their future, a decision may be taken. The Panchkarma Sahayak course run by the Uttarakhand Open University, is not as per the prescribed standards and for that the Uttarakhand Open University and the system is guilty and not the students. The technical expert, Principal, Rishikul submitted that there is no para-medical course for which the entrance eligibility is not Intermediate (Biology). For any disease and its cure the basic knowledge of Biology is must. The technical expert, Principal, Rishikul submitted that there is no para-medical course for which the entrance eligibility is not Intermediate (Biology). For any disease and its cure the basic knowledge of Biology is must. For example, in the Panchkarma process forceful vomiting is included. In absence of knowledge of physiology and biology serious problems can arise in which there can be a possibility of patient’s death also. In the same manner, for a diabetic patient long term fast is prohibited. He has also submitted his written statement on 27-3-2014 in which it has been clearly mentioned that “Panchkarma therapist course is related to para-medical education, as such, for such training 10+2 pass eligible qualification in Science subject, Biology group is necessary”. Uttarakhand Open University has submitted its detail written statement on 27-3-2014. 5. On the basis of the perusal of the above documents and hearing provided to the parties the following decision is taken:- (1) For the petitioners, who have done the diploma of Panchkarm Sahayak from Uttarakhand Open University and who are from science (biology group), a three month bridge course would be conducted by the Rishikul Government Ayurvedic College and Gurukul Ayurvedic Mahavidyalaya. The course fees and examination fees would be borne by the University and the petitioner would not be charged in this regard. Lodging, boarding expenses would be borne by the petitioners themselves. (2) The Uttarakhand Open University along with Principal, Rishikul Ayurvedic College will prepare the syllabus of the bridge course till 15th April, 2014 and the course would be conducted in May, June, July, 2014. (3) The examination of the said course would be conducted by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad and the minimum qualifying marks would be 50%. (4) In case of failure in first attempt in the bridge course, the petitioners would be provided one more opportunity, but for the second chance, the examination fees would be borne by the petitioners. In no circumstances, the petitioners would be given any other chance then the above two chances. (5) The petitioners who are not from the science and biology (science) group, i.e. who in the Intermediate were not having the Science and Biology subject, for them the Uttarakhand Open University shall first prepare an eligibility course. The duration of this eligibility course would be one year. The petitioners would have to qualify the said course for which the minimum percentage would be 40%. The duration of this eligibility course would be one year. The petitioners would have to qualify the said course for which the minimum percentage would be 40%. For this eligibility course and examination, the petitioners will not have to bear the expenses. The lodging, boarding expenses would be borne by the petitioners. (6) The said eligibility examination would not be equivalent to the Intermediate examination, but the purpose of it is to provide basic knowledge of science and biology to the petitioners. The said eligibility course would be conducted by the Uttarakhand Open University at its centres, where the facility for teaching the science and biology subject is available. (7) The examination for the said eligibility course would be conducted by the UOU, but framing of question of evaluation would not be done by the UOU. The eligibility course would be prepared by the UOU till 30-4-2014 and the course would be completed from July 2014 to June, 2015. (8) After qualifying the said eligibility qualification, the candidate would undergo the bridge course as provided in the preceding clause 1 to 4 and they will not required to pay the course fees and examination fees. (9) In this regard, the procedure and provisions for bridge course would be the same as provided in clause 1 to 4. (10) In case of failure in the eligibility examination, the students will fortify their right of diploma in Panchkarma. The courses conducted by the UOU under the Rural Health Science Education Stream or which are likely to be conducted in near future would be got approved/inspected by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Dehradun or medical education, Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Anything done against, would be illegal and legal process would be initiated against the UOU without any notice. 7. These orders are being issued in compliance to the Hon’ble High Court’s order and it would not be treated as a precedent in future with regard to similar matters. (Atar Singh) (Om Prakash) Controller Principal Secretary Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Medical Health and Family Welfare Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Uttarakhand Government.” 8. He would next invite our attention to the fact that the mark-sheet for the examination, after undergoing the bridge course, as contemplated by the Government in the order, was prepared by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad itself. (Atar Singh) (Om Prakash) Controller Principal Secretary Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad Medical Health and Family Welfare Uttarakhand, Dehradun. Uttarakhand Government.” 8. He would next invite our attention to the fact that the mark-sheet for the examination, after undergoing the bridge course, as contemplated by the Government in the order, was prepared by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad itself. He would point out that in the said marksheet, the Admission Year is shown as 2014; the Examination Year is shown as 2015 and it is apparently on the basis of the fact that the appellants have obtained the minimum marks as stipulated in the Government Order that they were declared passed and they secured registration with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad on 16.05.2015. He would point out that the appellants have also secured the marks-list, which is issued by the Uttarakhand Open University. He poses a question as to which of the marks-list will prevail. More importantly, he would actually refer to another translation of Rule 15(5), which reads as follows:- “Rule 15(5)- Selection Committee would prefer a select list of the candidates in the order of merit on the basis of the year of passing the diploma examination as is evident from the marks obtained by them in the diploma examination. In case, two or more candidates have obtained similar marks then the selection committee would place the candidate on the basis of their general eligibility. The name in the select list should be more than the post advertised (but not more than 25% of the vacancies). The said select list would be valid for a period of one year.” 9. Therefore, he would emphasize that what Rule 15(5) contemplates is the preparation of the select list of the candidates in order of merit on the basis of year of passing of the Diploma examination, and not of the year of the Diploma as contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would, however, point out that what is relevant is not the year of registration by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, but the year of passing the Diploma. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would, however, point out that what is relevant is not the year of registration by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, but the year of passing the Diploma. He would point out that the students cannot be made victims as they only attended the course, which was being conducted by the Uttarakhand Open University, which is created by the State, and no blame can be made at the doorstep of the appellants; they invited the appellants through the advertisement and they enrolled for the course, and have obtained the Diploma of the year 2010-2011; it is the said year, which is relevant under the Rules. He also has a contention that after they successfully underwent the bridge course and the examination at the end of the bridge course, as contemplated in the Government Order passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the examination result in the bridge course must relate back to the year, in which, they underwent the actual course, namely, 2010-2011. 11. This is rather extra ordinary case for the reason that the very course, which was undergone by the appellants, was found to be flawed and it was, having regard to the future of the students, that the Court was persuaded to intervene in the earlier round. The court directed the Government to look into the matter and to salvage the future of the students; the directions were given, which we have extracted; the Government considered the matter and came up with a solution that those, who had undergone the Science stream, should undergo a bridge course and obtain 50% marks, and on that basis, it is the appellants, who underwent the bridge course and passed the examination with the requisite marks, obtained registration at the hands of the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. Admittedly, the registration took place in the year 2015. 12. We must, indeed, consider the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the date of registration with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad may not be relevant, having regard to the definite words used in the Rules. Admittedly, the registration took place in the year 2015. 12. We must, indeed, consider the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the date of registration with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad may not be relevant, having regard to the definite words used in the Rules. We also may be inclined to agree with the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that it is not the date of registration with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, which is relevant under Rule 15(5) in the matter of preparation of the select list, but we must then pose a question, having regard to the words used in Rule 15(5) that the year of passing of the Diploma examination will be clinching. In this case, it is true that the appellants attended one year course in the year 2010-2011 conducted by the Uttarakhand Open University, no doubt, a creature of the State, but we cannot ignore the fact that the course underwent by the appellants was found to be flawed. The students, who underwent the course, were not being registered by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. Without being registered, they had no future and it is following the direction of this Court that the Government took the decision as we have noticed. The solution to the problem was found in directing a bridge course to be undergone in respect of the appellants, who, apparently, belonged to the Science stream. They underwent an examination and they came out successfully in that examination. It is not in dispute that they came out successful in the examination, which was held in the year 2015. Therefore, if we consider the words used ‘the year of passing of the Diploma examination’ and not the ‘year of the Diploma’, in the special facts of this case, it may not be appropriate for us to permit the appellants to lay store by the year, in which they underwent the one-year course originally under the Uttarakhand Open University. No doubt, the Diploma as such bears the year 2010-2011, apparently, for the reason that it was the year, they underwent the course under the Uttarakhand Open University. No doubt, the Diploma as such bears the year 2010-2011, apparently, for the reason that it was the year, they underwent the course under the Uttarakhand Open University. When it comes to the year of passing the Diploma examination, having regard to the fact that under the Government Order, they were obliged to undergo another special examination (bridge course) and the appellants are themselves taking benefit out of that, we cannot allow the appellants also to draw support from the original period of time, when they underwent the course under the Uttarakhand Open University. Therefore, we would think that the appellants have not made out any case for interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Appeal will stand dismissed.