Introduction:
In Shashi Bala and Others v State of Uttarakhand and Others, the Uttarakhand High Court was called upon to adjudicate a significant issue concerning public employment, professional qualifications, and the interplay between university recognition and regulatory approval. The petitioners, a group of contractual Yoga Trainers, challenged their exclusion from consideration for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak under the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak Service Rules, 2021. Their primary grievance was that despite possessing postgraduate degrees in Yoga from universities recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC), they were rendered ineligible due to the absence of a one-year diploma recognized by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttarakhand, along with the requisite registration.
The controversy arose when an advertisement issued in 2024 invited applications for 16 posts of Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak, prescribing specific eligibility conditions under Rule 8(b) of the 2021 Service Rules. The petitioners, who had been working as Yoga Trainers through outsourcing agencies between 2018 and 2020 and had rendered services even during the COVID-19 pandemic, contended that their qualifications and experience were sufficient for appointment. However, their lack of the prescribed diploma and registration with the statutory regulatory body became the central point of contention.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit examined whether the exclusion of candidates holding UGC-recognized degrees, but lacking recognition from the competent regulatory authority, was arbitrary or violative of constitutional principles. The case thus raised broader questions about the nature of eligibility criteria in public employment, the role of statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, and the distinction between academic recognition and professional accreditation.
Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners:
The petitioners advanced a multi-faceted argument challenging both the validity of Rule 8(b) of the 2021 Service Rules and the eligibility criteria prescribed in the 2024 advertisement. At the core of their contention was the assertion that their MA (Yoga) degrees, obtained from universities duly recognized by the UGC, should be considered sufficient for appointment to the post in question. They argued that UGC recognition ensures a certain standard of academic quality and legitimacy, and therefore, their qualifications could not be disregarded solely on the ground that they lacked recognition from another body.
The petitioners further emphasized their practical experience, pointing out that they had been engaged as Yoga Trainers in government wellness centres for several years. They highlighted their contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic, asserting that their services were essential in promoting health and wellness during a critical period. On this basis, they argued that their experience should be given due weightage and that their exclusion from consideration for regular appointment was unjust and arbitrary.
Another significant argument put forth by the petitioners related to the nature of their employment. They contended that although they were engaged through outsourcing agencies, these agencies merely acted as intermediaries or placement bodies. In substance, the State exercised control over their work and functions, making it the real employer. On this premise, the petitioners claimed a right to regularization and parity with regularly appointed employees, invoking principles of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioners also challenged the validity of Rule 8(b), arguing that it created an unreasonable classification by excluding candidates with higher academic qualifications (such as a postgraduate degree in Yoga) in favor of those possessing a specific diploma recognized by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad. They contended that such a classification lacked a rational nexus with the object of the post and was therefore arbitrary and discriminatory.
Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (State of Uttarakhand and Others):
The State and other respondents strongly defended the validity of the service rules and the eligibility criteria prescribed therein. They argued that the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak Service Rules, 2021 were statutory in nature, having been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. As such, these rules carried the force of law and could only be challenged on limited grounds, such as lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights—neither of which, according to the respondents, had been established by the petitioners.
The respondents emphasized that the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttarakhand, is the competent statutory regulatory body governing qualifications in the field of Ayurvedic and naturopathic practice. They argued that the post of Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak involves clinical responsibilities and requires specialized training in naturopathy and allied systems of medicine. Therefore, only those candidates who possess qualifications recognized by the regulatory body can be deemed eligible.
It was further submitted that recognition of a university by the UGC is fundamentally different from recognition of a specific course by a professional regulatory body. While the UGC ensures the overall standards of higher education institutions, it does not regulate professional practice or certify the suitability of a particular course for a specialized role. In contrast, the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad is tasked with maintaining standards in the relevant field and ensuring that practitioners possess the necessary skills and training.
The respondents also rejected the petitioners’ claim for regularization, arguing that engagement through outsourcing agencies does not create any vested right to permanent employment. They contended that the petitioners were fully aware of the terms of their engagement and could not now claim entitlement to regular appointment without meeting the prescribed qualifications.
Finally, the respondents maintained that the eligibility criteria were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, as they applied uniformly to all candidates and were based on rational considerations related to the nature of the post.
Judgment:
The Uttarakhand High Court, after carefully considering the submissions of both parties, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of Rule 8(b) of the 2021 Service Rules as well as the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement.
At the outset, the Court reaffirmed the principle that statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution enjoy a presumption of validity and can only be struck down on limited grounds. The Court found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate either a lack of legislative competence or any violation of fundamental rights. Consequently, there was no basis to invalidate Rule 8(b).
The Court then addressed the central issue of whether possession of a degree from a UGC-recognized university is sufficient to claim eligibility for appointment to a regulated post. In a clear and categorical observation, the Court held that recognition by the UGC is distinct from recognition by a statutory regulatory body. While UGC recognition pertains to the legitimacy of the university, it does not automatically confer validity upon a specific course for the purposes of professional practice or public employment.
The Court emphasized that in fields governed by specialized regulatory bodies, such as Ayurvedic and naturopathic practice, the qualifications prescribed by those bodies are determinative. Therefore, candidates aspiring to such posts must possess the qualifications recognized by the relevant regulatory authority. The absence of such recognition renders a candidate ineligible, irrespective of other academic credentials.
The Court also rejected the argument that higher academic qualifications should override the requirement of a specific diploma. It observed that the State, as an employer, has the authority to prescribe qualifications for its posts, and such prescriptions are entitled to deference unless shown to be arbitrary or irrational. In the present case, the requirement of a diploma recognized by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad was found to have a clear nexus with the duties of the post, which involved clinical responsibilities.
On the issue of classification, the Court held that differentiation based on educational qualifications is permissible, particularly in professional fields. The classification in question was based on a rational criterion—recognition by the competent regulatory body—and was directly related to the objective of ensuring competent and qualified personnel in the relevant field.
The Court further dismissed the petitioners’ claim for regularization, reiterating that contractual or outsourced employees do not acquire a right to permanent employment merely by virtue of their engagement. The Court noted that the petitioners’ appointment through outsourcing agencies did not create any legal relationship of employer and employee with the State that would entitle them to regularization.
In conclusion, the Court held that the petitioners, lacking the prescribed diploma and registration with the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, were not eligible for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak. The exclusion of such candidates was neither arbitrary nor illegal but was in accordance with the statutory framework governing the field.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.