Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1042 (HP)

Gurcharan Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-05-16

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “a) That the respondent-department may kindly be directed to appoint the applicant for the post of Homeopathic Doctor from the date of appointment of his junior i.e. private respondent. b) That the respondent-department may kindly be directed to release notional and consequential benefit along with interest.” 2. Respondent No.2 invited applications for filling up 14 posts of Homoeopathic Doctors, Class-II, in the Department of Ayurveda vide an advertisement dated 06.12.1996. The essential qualification for the post was prescribed as under:- (i) Should have passed Matriculation or its equivalent examination from recognized Board/University by the State Government/Central Government. (ii) The candidate must possess 5 ½ years degree in Homoeopathy from a recognized Institution mentioned in second or third schedule of Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. However, all candidates having medical qualification in Homoeopathy of 4 years duration (Diploma holders) awarded prior to enforcement of Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1983 included in the second schedule to the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 are also eligible as one time relaxation. (iii) Should be registered with the Central Homoeopathy Council/Homoeopathy Council of H.P. 3. The petitioner has passed the 4 years Diploma course in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery in the year 1988. The petitioner was registered with the Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla on 07.11.1992. 4. The petitioner submitted his application for the post of Homoeopathy Doctor, Class-II in pursuance to advertisement dated 06.12.1996 issued by respondent No.2. 5. The candidature of petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide communication dated 04.06.1997 with following observations: “(ii) According to one-time relaxation, the candidate having medical qualification in Homoeopathy of 4-year duration (Diploma holder) awarded prior to enforcement of Homoeopathic Regulation, 1983 (date of enforcement is11.05.83) are also eligible. Whereas, you have obtained diploma in the year 1988.” 6. The petitioner filed the instant petition in the year 2018 for the reliefs as noticed above on the grounds that the similarly situated person Dr. Poonam Kaushal was appointed as Homoeopathy Doctor in terms of judgment dated 23.02.2011 passed in CWP No.1744 of 2009. It has further been contended that respondent No.3 was appointed as Homoeopathy Doctor against the post reserved for OBC candidate, whereas, the said respondent belongs to general category. Poonam Kaushal was appointed as Homoeopathy Doctor in terms of judgment dated 23.02.2011 passed in CWP No.1744 of 2009. It has further been contended that respondent No.3 was appointed as Homoeopathy Doctor against the post reserved for OBC candidate, whereas, the said respondent belongs to general category. The petitioner by claiming himself to be a candidate from OBC category has sought the priority of appointment over private respondent. 7. Respondent No.1 in its reply has contested the claim of the petitioner by alleging that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification. He was having a diploma after qualifying four-year course in the year 1988. The essential qualification was 5½ years degree in Homoeopathy from a recognized institution. One-time relaxation in qualification was granted to all such candidates, who had possessed 4 years diploma course prior to 1983 i.e. before the enforcement of Homoeopathy Regulation Act, 1983. 8. Respondent No.1 has pointed out that the petitioner had earlier also filed CWP(T) No.4065 of 2008 for the similar relief, which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2010. 9. As regards the appointment given to Dr. Poonam Kaushal, it has been submitted that the same was done in compliance to orders of this Court dated 20.04.2012 passed in LPA No. 514 of 2011 titled State of H.P. vs. Dr. Poonam Kaushal. Similarly, with respect to allegations against respondent No.3, it has been submitted that the appointment was given to him on the recommendations made by respondent No.2. 10. Respondent No.2 has also filed short reply. It has been submitted that the petition cannot be maintained being barred by principle of delay and laches. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 12. Indisputably, the petitioner had passed diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery in December, 1988. His diploma was of four-year duration. As per essential qualification prescribed by respondent No.1, the candidates having medical qualification in Homoeopathy of 4 years duration (diploma holder) awarded prior to enforcement of Homoeopathic Regulation, 1983, were made eligible. The petitioner admittedly was not holding eligibility as per the prescribed essential qualification. Thus, the rejection of his candidature by respondent No.2, cannot be faulted. 13. As per essential qualification prescribed by respondent No.1, the candidates having medical qualification in Homoeopathy of 4 years duration (diploma holder) awarded prior to enforcement of Homoeopathic Regulation, 1983, were made eligible. The petitioner admittedly was not holding eligibility as per the prescribed essential qualification. Thus, the rejection of his candidature by respondent No.2, cannot be faulted. 13. Respondent No.1 has placed on record a copy of judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 20.12.2010 in CWP-T No. 4065 of 2008, in which the petitioner herein has been shown as petitioner No.2. The issue decided in the said case was “whether a person having 4½ years diploma after 1983 is eligible to be appointed as Homoeopathic Doctor”. Placing reliance on the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 4402 of 2008, titled Gian Chand vs. State of H.P. & Others, it was held that a person having 4½ years diploma after 1983 was not eligible to be appointed as Homoeopathic doctor. In view of the decision on the same issue earlier, the petitioner cannot maintain the instant petition on the same ground alone. Even otherwise, the petitioner is dis-entitled from claiming relief in writ jurisdiction by suppressing the material fact. 14. The instant petition is also barred by delay and laches. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected in the year 1997. The petitioner filed the instant petition in 2018, when he had reached the age of 57 years. On this ground also, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 15. As regards the parity with the case of Dr. Poonam Kaushal, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit for the reasons that the said incumbent has been granted appointment in terms of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the judgment passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1114 of 1997, titled Dr. Jugal Kishore & another vs. State of H.P. and others and there is nothing on record to substantiate that the case of the petitioner was identical to the case of Dr. Poonam Kaushal. 16. Since the petitioner was not holding requisite essential qualification for being appointed as Homoeopathic doctor, he has no locus standi to challenge the appointment or seniority of respondent No.3. Public Interest Litigation in service matters is not permissible. 17. Poonam Kaushal. 16. Since the petitioner was not holding requisite essential qualification for being appointed as Homoeopathic doctor, he has no locus standi to challenge the appointment or seniority of respondent No.3. Public Interest Litigation in service matters is not permissible. 17. In result, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.