Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash and set aside the appointment of Respondent 5 to the post of Chairperson, National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (‘NCISM’), the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ.*, and Tushar Rao Gedela, J., stated that every degree awarded by a University after graduation could not be termed to be a “post-graduation qualification” for the reason that in the domain of higher education in our country ‘Post-Graduate Degree’ had acquired a special meaning and significance. Therefore, the Court stated that the appointment of Respondent 5 as Chairperson of National NCISM for Indian System of Medicine was contrary to Section 4(2) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (‘NCISM Act, 2020’), and accordingly quashed and set aside the appointment of Respondent 5 as NCISM, Chairperson.
Background
Since the two petitions in the present case, raised common questions of law and facts, the same have been heard together and were being decided by this common judgment and order.
The petitioners stated that the appointment of Respondent 5 was made dehors the statutory provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020. Therefore, such an appointment made in contravention of provisions of the statute, was not sustainable. The petitioners further argued that Respondent 5 did not possess the statutorily provided requisite essential eligibility qualification in terms of Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020. Hence, he was a usurper of the office of Chairperson of the NCISM and, accordingly his appointment deserved to be quashed by issuing a writ of Quo Warranto.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that in case any public office was said to be occupied by holder of its office who did not possess the requisite eligibility qualification prescribed by the statute, or if appointment was made in violation of statutory rules, locus of the person challenging such appointment by praying for issuance of writ of Quo Warranto losses its relevance.
The Court stated that in case, it was established that holder of the public office lacked the requisite qualification as prescribed by the statute or his appointment was dehors the statutory rules, a writ of Quo Warranto could be issued by the Courts. Further, so far as the opinion of the selection/search committee on the candidate’s merit was concerned, since this Court would not act as an appellate authority over such opinion, interference in such a situation might be impermissible.
The Court stated that every degree awarded by a university after graduation could not be termed to be a “post-graduation qualification” because in the domain of higher education in our country ‘Post-Graduate Degree’ had acquired a special meaning and significance. The Court stated that in our country, LL.B. degree where three-year course was prescribed (except in five years integrated courses) was awarded only to a candidate who had already possessed a graduation degree. However, that will not mean that LL.B. degree was a post-graduate degree in law.
The Court stated that in the present case, higher qualification, as was contended by respondents was a Ph.D. degree whereas requisite qualification under the Act was a post graduate degree, namely MD or any other equivalent master’s degree in any discipline of Indian System of Medicine. However, the Ph.D. degree which was awarded to Respondent 5 did not presuppose acquisition of lower qualification (master’s degree in Ayurveda). Respondent 5 was admitted to Ph.D. Course without undergoing the master’s degree Course immediately after obtaining his graduation degree in Ayurveda.
The Court stated that the submission that since the Search Committee on whose recommendation Respondent 5 was appointed as Chairperson of the NCISM comprised of experts, therefore, any interference in the appointment would mean to sit in appeal over the decision of the experts, did not hold good for the reason that it was a case where Respondent 5 clearly lacked the essential eligibility qualification statutorily prescribed by Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020.
Therefore, the Court stated that the appointment of Respondent 5 as Chairperson of National NCISM for Indian System of Medicine was contrary to Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020 as he did not fulfil the requisite qualification prescribed for appointment to the said office. Hence, the Court quashed and set aside the appointment of Respondent 5 as Chairperson of the NCISM.
[Ved Prakash Tyagi v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4260, decided on 6-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Nabab Singh, Apurva Upamanyu and Suryadeep Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, ASG and Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Sandeep Mishra, Naveen, Amit Gupta and Bhavi Garg, Advocates; Archana Pathak Dave, ASG with Kumar Prashant and Avnish Dave, Advocates; Monika Arora, CGSC with Subhodeep Saha, Prabhat Kumar and Anamika Thakur, Advocates; Arun Bharadwaj, Senior Advocate and Ruchi Kohli, Senior Advocate with Ankita Chaudhary, Shreyas Balaji, Chand Kapoor, Srishti Mishra and Neha Mishra, Advocates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
