TTISSARH AT BILASPUR SIJ Writ Petition (S) No. 5159 of 2007 Punila! Chauhan, aged cbout 40 years, son of Shri Nanku Ram Chauhan, occupation - Ayurved Sover'nment Ayur'/edi Aushdhuiaya, viliage Jatri, 6ram Pcnchayat Jatri, Vikas Khand Pussaur, Tahsii and Distt. Raigarh (C6) 3. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Sscretary, Department of Hsalth and Family Welfare, &au Kalyan Sin9h Bhawan, Raipur (C6) 'he Secretary, Department of Gsnersu Administration, Dau tolyan Singh Bhawcn, Raipur (C6) The Director, Bharatiya Chikitsa Padhat+i Evem Homeopathy, Behind DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C&) Collector, &istt. Raigarh (C6) The District Ayurved Adhikari, Near Shriram Colony, Beladula Road, Raigarh, Distt. fta'garh (C6) the 'y Union of India, AAinistry of Health Welfar® (Ayurved Prakosth) New Delhi. Chikitsa A.; 6 -2-' ^•^^!:i!^SWSS&^ ^^SIi^:^. ;:WpSS3iSS81SSSSS9SS9SS ^^ssS^iK^vs;s^Ssii^!i^}s^i^Ssisi ' "'lG^:'^:';^sf^li@%]i?l;psi^^s'stli^^^ ^a^M^S!:%u^%^Kg^i. WritPetitionunderArt-icle 226/227 ofth®Constitufiun^ieKIiBdia Present: Shri AN Bhakfa,cdunsel for Ihe petitioner. ^ . ShriPrashouit Mishra; Additional Advocate Seneral ShriSumesh B<yaj/6overnrneOTtAdvococte^orthe ^^^^y .S-hrte.' . . , :.'.' . . , : • ^ •••'^^^^^^^ Shri SK Beriwal, counsel for Union of India. Oral Order (Possed on 27th August. 2007) The •followjng oral order of the Court was passed by « Hon'ble jdgdish Bhalla. Ag. C.J. .Heard.:: : .. : , , ; ' : . : , ; ;!;.:: The petitioner hds challenged the vires of Rule 14 and Scliedule IV, 51. No.6 (Prowar-two) of the Madhya Prddesh / Chhattisgarh LoR Swasthya (Bharatiya Chikftsa Pfldhati Tatha Homebpccthy) Ti-itiyttShreni VpikVarg^ ^Bhart-i Niyam^, 1987. It has been submitted thcrt^^ contrary to the spiritof preanible culd Article 13 of the Constitution oflndia,wher'ebyequalopportunityinemploymenthasbeenabridged becauseofthe discriminatorytreatment. From ths ps''usal bf the aforesaid rules, we find that compouhders who have d particular degree are eligible for promotion to the post of Ayurvedic / Homeopathic doctor to the extent of 40%. The petitioner does not have the said degree,therefore, he is not eligible. The petitioner has some other degree, which is not recognized. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the afbresaid rule is ultra vires to the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to substflmtiate his argument. Accordingly, no interference is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge 5-^ ^••-t..-,: