MA (Yoga) Degree Holders Ineligible For Appointment Without Diploma From Regulatory Body; UGC-Recognised Degree Insufficient: Uttarakhand HC

The Uttarakhand High Court has held that possession of a degree from a university recognized by the University Grants Commission does not, by itself, entitle a candidate to appointment where the course is not recognized by the competent statutory regulatory body.

The Court was dealing with a challenge by contractual Yoga Trainers who were excluded from consideration for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak on account of not possessing the prescribed diploma recognized by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttarakhand. Upholding the eligibility criteria, the Court held that such classification is valid and consistent with the statutory scheme governing professional qualifications.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit dismissed the writ petition challenging Rule 8(b) of the Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak Service Rules, 2021 and the corresponding advertisement.

The petitioners were engaged as Yoga Trainers through outsourcing agencies between 2018 and 2020 and possessed MA (Yoga) degrees from UGC-recognized universities. They challenged an advertisement issued in 2024 inviting applications for 16 posts of Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak, which required candidates to possess a one-year diploma recognized by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, Uttarakhand and to be registered with the said body.

Admittedly, the petitioners did not possess the prescribed diploma nor were they registered with the regulatory body. They accordingly challenged Rule 8(b) of the 2021 Service Rules as arbitrary and sought regularization as well as eligibility for appointment.

The petitioners contended that their MA (Yoga) degrees, being from UGC-recognized universities, ought to be treated as sufficient qualification. It was further argued that they had been discharging duties as Yoga Trainers in government wellness centres for several years, including during the COVID-19 period, and therefore could not be excluded from consideration for regular appointment.

They also asserted that outsourcing agencies were merely placement agencies and that the State was their real employer, entitling them to regularization and equal benefits.

The respondents contended that the qualification prescribed under Rule 8(b) was in accordance with the statutory service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. It was submitted that Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad is the competent regulatory body governing such courses and that only qualifications recognized by it could be treated as valid for appointment.

It was further submitted that the post in question involves clinical duties requiring specific training in naturopathy and allied systems, which the petitioners did not possess.

The Court held that the service rules, being statutory in nature, could be challenged only on limited grounds such as lack of legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights, neither of which was established in the present case.

It further held that classification based on educational qualifications is permissible, particularly in professional fields regulated by statutory bodies. The Court emphasized that recognition of a university by the UGC is distinct from recognition of a course by a regulatory body, and only the latter is relevant for determining eligibility for appointment to a regulated post.

“Merely because petitioners do not possess a qualification recognized by Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad would not be a valid ground for challenging Rule 8(b) of the service rules. Anyone who aspires to serve under the State must possesses the essential qualifications prescribed by the State Government for appointment to a post…Merely because the universities, which awarded MA (Yoga) degree to petitioners, are recognized by University Grants Commission will not entitle petitioners to claim appointment as Ayurvedic Yog evam Prakritik Chikitsa Sahayak. Recognition by University Grants Commission to a university is different from recognition granted by a regulatory body to a particular course of study. In other words, when there is a regulatory body in place, then anyone, who desires to be appointed to a post in a related branch, must possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in the service rules”, the Court held.

The Court also observed that the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe qualifications for appointment, and candidates who do not possess such qualifications cannot claim eligibility merely on the basis of experience or alternative degrees.

Finding no arbitrariness or illegality in Rule 8(b) or the eligibility conditions prescribed in the advertisement, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

The Court held that in the absence of the prescribed qualification recognized by the Bhartiya Chikitsa Parishad, the petitioners were not entitled to registration or appointment.

Case Name: Shashi Bala and Others v State of Uttarakhand and Others

Case No.: Writ Petition (S/B) No. 111 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order