Introduction:
In a significant ruling, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court clarified the relationship between Ayurveda and Yoga while addressing the eligibility of candidates seeking appointment as Ayurveda Compounders/Nurses. The case emerged from a batch of petitions filed by individuals who had served as yoga instructors during the COVID-19 pandemic and were contesting the government’s decision not to award them bonus marks for their experience. Justice Farjand Ali presided over the case, emphasizing that while Ayurveda and Yoga complement each other, they have distinct roots, functions, and applications. This distinction became crucial in determining whether the petitioners’ experience as yoga instructors could be considered equivalent to the work of Ayurveda Compounders or Nurses.
Background of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as yoga instructors under the National AYUSH Mission during the pandemic and sought to claim bonus marks as part of their application for the Ayurveda Compounder/Nurse positions. They argued that their roles during COVID-19 were similar to that of Ayurveda Compounders/Nurses and thus warranted recognition in the recruitment process.
The controversy stemmed from an order issued by the Medical and Health Department, which stipulated that candidates with relevant experience during the pandemic would receive bonus marks in the recruitment process. However, the petitioners’ claims were met with resistance from the AYUSH department, which stated that the role of yoga instructors was not comparable to that of Ayurveda Compounders/Nurses.
Arguments by the Petitioners:
The petitioners contended that their experience as yoga instructors was directly relevant to the role of Ayurveda Compounders/Nurses, particularly given the context of public health during the pandemic. They argued that the nature of their work involved caring for patients’ physical and mental well-being, which aligns with the holistic principles of Ayurveda. Furthermore, they claimed that the order for bonus marks from the Medical and Health Department should apply to them since they had provided valuable services during a critical period.
The petitioners also pointed out that they had fulfilled the government’s requirement for bonus marks, which was intended to recognize those who contributed to public health initiatives during the pandemic. They emphasized that their work in yoga instruction required specialized knowledge and skills that could be viewed as complementary to the practices of Ayurveda.
Arguments by the Respondents:
On the other hand, the respondents, representing the State of Rajasthan and the AYUSH department, argued that the work of yoga instructors was fundamentally different from that of Ayurveda Compounders/Nurses. They asserted that Ayurveda is rooted in traditional medicine with a scientific basis, whereas Yoga is primarily a physical activity focused on achieving a balance between mind and body.
The respondents highlighted that the AYUSH department had specific service rules governing the recruitment of Ayurveda professionals, distinct from those of the Medical and Health department. They contended that the bonus marks provided for experience under the Medical and Health department’s order could not be applied to candidates from the AYUSH department, as the two departments operate under different legal frameworks and guidelines.
Moreover, the respondents maintained that the experience as yoga instructors did not meet the criteria for “similar work” as outlined in the recruitment rules for Ayurveda Compounders/Nurses. They emphasized that the nature of work performed by yoga instructors was not equivalent to the duties and responsibilities associated with Ayurveda nursing or compounding.
Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
The Rajasthan High Court, led by Justice Farjand Ali, undertook a detailed examination of the arguments presented by both sides. The court began by affirming the distinct nature of Ayurveda and Yoga, noting that while they complement each other in the pursuit of health and wellness, they are not interchangeable. The court elaborated that Ayurveda has developed as a traditional medical science, while Yoga is a practice focused on physical and mental harmony.
In analyzing the legal provisions surrounding the recruitment process, the court noted that the orders governing bonus marks were issued under different subordinate service rules for the AYUSH and Medical and Health departments. The court remarked on the significance of these distinct rules, stating, “How could the order passed under one be made applicable to the recruitment process of the other was not comprehensible.” This distinction was pivotal in understanding the limitations of the claims made by the petitioners.
The court further assessed the eligibility criteria for bonus marks under Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy, and Naturopathy Subordinate Services Rules, 1966. It clarified that the provision for bonus marks explicitly required candidates to have experience in “similar work.” The court concluded that the roles of yoga instructors and Ayurveda Compounders/Nurses are not comparable, emphasizing, “Here in the case at hand, the petitioners were appointed as Yoga Instructors and their work cannot be treated as similar, equal, alike to that of Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder.”
Given this analysis, the court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to bonus marks based on their experience as yoga instructors. The court highlighted that despite their service during the pandemic, the specific nature of their work did not fulfill the criteria set out in the relevant recruitment rules. The court disposed of the petitions, affirming that the petitioners could not benefit from the bonus marks under the existing legal framework.