IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29657 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- DR.AJITHKUMAR.A.U, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.A.K.UDAYAVARMA, THEKKEKOTTARAM FORT, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA- 690 101,. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELWARE,NEW DELHI. 2. STATE MISSION DIRECTOR,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION-NRHM,STATE HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY,STATE PROGRAME MONITORING SUPPORT UNIT, STATE HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 035. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG SRI.M.AJAY, SC FOR NRHM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NOS.29658 AND 29685/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 29657, 29658 & 29685 OF 2009 =============================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T These writ petitions are filed by BHMS Graded Degree holders. They claimed eligibility to be considered for the post of Medical Officer, Homoeo in pursuance to Ext.P1, in WP(C) No.29657/09, issued by the second respondent. 2. According to the petitioners, their Degree viz., BHMS Graded is equivalent to that of BHMS(GD) prescribed in Ext.P1 and therefore they should also be treated as eligible candidates. Petitioners in WP(C) No.29657/09 have also produced Ext.P3, an order issued by the University equating BHMS Graded with BHMS Direct Degree and they are also relying on Ext.P4 judgment in OP NO.2726/03 and 5429/03 to support their contention. 3. In my view, the respondents cannot be faulted for the view that the petitioners are ineligible. This is for the reason that admittedly what the petitioners possess is BHMS Graded and what is prescribed in Ext.P1 is BHMS Direct Degree. Unless the recruitment rules for the post of Medical Officers, Homoeo equate the post of BHMS Graded also with BHMS Direct, the petitioners WPC Nos. 29657, 29658 & 29685/09 :2 : who are possessing the former degree cannot claim eligibility to be considered for the post. 4. In so far as Ext.P3, the University order referred to above is concerned, even if the University has equated these two qualifications, petitioners cannot claim any right based on the university oder, so long as the Recruitment Rule do not contain any such equation. 5. In so far as the judgment referred to above relied on by the counsel for the petitioners is concerned, a reading of para 2 of the judgment shows that in that case, learned Government Pleader had agreed to treat those having degree of BHMS Graded also as qualified for the post of Tutor. There is no adjudication on the merits of the controversy and therefore, the judgment is not of any assistance to the petitioners. 6. Counsel for the State Mission Director, the 2nd respondent in WP(C) NO.29657/09 also has brought to my notice judgment of this Court in WP(C) NO.26901/09 where this Court has upheld the competence of the said authority to prescribe qualifications. In view of all the above, I am not inclined to agree with the petitioners. Writ petitions fail and are dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp