CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13140 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 26, 2009 Dr.Ashok Rana and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Central Council of Indian Medicines, New Delhi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners pray for issuing direction to respondent- Haryana State for re-designating their posts of Demonstrator as Lecturer. The basis of this prayer is a communication dated 26.11.2002 (Annexure P-7) initiated by Central Council of Indian Medicines. Present one is a second approach by the petitioners. Earlier Civil Writ Petition No.19962 of 2008 was disposed of with a direction to Secretary, Government of Haryana, Health Department, to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass a speaking CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13140 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: order after taking all the aspects of the case of the petitioners into consideration within a period of two months. The order has now been passed by the Secretary concerned on 10.2.2009 (Annexure P-15), declining the request of the petitioners, which they have now impugned through the present writ petition. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Demonstrator in Siri Krishna Govt. Ayurvedic College, Kurukshetra, on 7.4.1998 and 1.12.1998 respectively. They are continuing as such. On the basis of the communication (Annexure P-7) initiated by respondent No.1, issued to all State Governments to change the designation of Demonstrator to Lecturer, the petitioners have filed this petition to re- designate them as Lecturer. The counsel for the petitioners pleads that directions issued by respondent No.1 for re-designating the petitioners as Lecturers are mandatory and, thus, binding on the State. In this regard, the counsel has also referred to certain letters like Annexure P-17, in which this position is stated to have been conceded by the State. What right, a person will have to seek re-designation of his post or appointment, is the core question requiring consideration. Re-designation of a post on which a particular person is appointed is normally not open to be claimed as a matter of right. The nature of the communication (Annexure P-7), being directory, mandatory or advisory, would not be an issue which is required to be gone into. Can the petitioners raise this question is another issue? They are the employees of a State. If some communication, which is taken to be mandatory is issued by the Central Council of Indian Medicines CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13140 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: and is not being complied with, then it would be for the Council to either ensure compliance or to agitate. The petitioners can file and maintain a writ petition to claim something if they have a legal right or a constitutional right or some such right is violated. The petitioners concededly were considered and appointed as Demonstrators. While considering their representation for re-designation of their post as required by the Central Council of Indian Medicines, it is noticed that Haryana Ayurvedic Education (Group A and B) Services Rule, 1999, amended in 2008, provides Post Graduate qualification for the Lecturers in the concerned subject and degree in Ayurveda from any recognized University or statutory Board etc. It is also noticed that the post of Demonstrator is a Class-III post in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500+NPA, whereas Lecturer is a Class II Post in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000+NPA. The petitioners are statedly not possessing the requisite qualifications. It is also observed that the Central Council of Indian Medicines can only make recommendations which are not binding on the State Government. It is also noticed that if the Demonstrators, who are under Graduate are designated as Lecturers, it would amount to diluting the academic standards and payment of higher wages to those who are not qualified to hold such posts. I do not find any infirmity in the reasons advanced and noted in the impugned order, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. As already noted, the question involved here is about the re-designation of the post and not about the nature and effect of the communication initiated by respondent No.1. Whether it is mandatory, directory or advisory is not the question for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13140 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: this Court to see. The counsel has relied upon a judgement in the case of Neeraja Malik Vs. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RSJ 246 to urge that universities are bound to implement the directions of U.G.C. This was a case of U.G.C. taking a decision of passing of eligibility test for teacher working prior to the enforcement of rules. Thus operation of rules was the issue in the said case, which would stand in different context as question of some violation of rights did not arise in the said case. A person ordinarily would not have any right to seek re-designation of a post, when qualifications are different and the posts are carrying different pay scales. It has also been fairly noticed in the impugned order, Annexure P-15, that if any Demonstrator acquires any Post Graduate degree, he will be upgraded and designated as Lecturer. That being so, the prayer by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is possessing such qualification and should be re-designated as Lecturers would require consideration by the respondents, for which no direction would be needed from the Court. The decision in this regard has already been taken and noted in Annexure P-15. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. August 26, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE