Every Degree Awarded By University After Graduation Not A “Post-Graduation Qualification”: Delhi High Court Allows Plea Against Appointment Of NCISM Chairperson

The Delhi High Court held that every Degree awarded by a University after graduation cannot be termed to be a “post-graduation qualification”.

The Court held thus in two Writ Petitions against the appointment of Vaidya Jayant Yeshwant Deopujari to the post of Chairperson, National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (NCISM).

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “We are of the considered opinion that every degree awarded by a university after graduation cannot be termed to be a “post-graduation qualification” for the reason that in the domain of higher education in our country ‘Post-Graduate Degree’ has acquired a special meaning and significance and post-graduate degree means a Master’s Degree like M.A., M.Sc, M.D., LL.M or M.Ed.”

The Bench also held that in case any public office is said to be occupied by holder of its office who does not possess the requisite eligibility qualification prescribed by the statute, or if appointment has been made in violation of statutory rules, locus of the person challenging such appointment by way of a prayer for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto losses its relevance.

Advocate Ashok Kumar Panigrahi represented the Petitioners while ASGs Chetan Sharma, Archana Dave, Senior Advocates Arun Bharadwaj, and Ruchi Kohli represented the Respondents.

Challenge

NCISM has been constituted under Section 3 of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act). A prayer was made in the Petitions before the High Court for issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto as well as Writ of Certiorari, quashing and setting aside the appointment of the Respondent to the post of Chairperson, NCISM.

Contentions

The counsel for the Petitioners argued that the appointment of the Respondent has been made dehors the statutory provisions contained in Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, and, therefore, such an appointment having been made in contravention of provisions of the statute, is not sustainable. It was further argued that the Respondent does not possess the statutorily provided requisite essential eligibility qualification in terms of Section 4(2) and hence, he is an usurper of the office of Chairperson of the Commission and, accordingly his appointment deserves to be quashed by issuing a Writ of Quo Warranto.

It was also alleged that the Respondent neither possesses a post-graduate degree nor has 10 years’ experience as a leader in the area of healthcare delivery, growth, and development of Indian System of Medicine or its education and, therefore, lacks eligibility qualification. On the other hand, ASG contended that the Petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… for maintaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before a writ Court, the person approaching the Court need not establish any interest or any special or personal interest in the matter and, accordingly, we hold that locus of the petitioners in these two PIL petitions, since a writ of Quo Warranto has been sought, is of no relevance. What all the Court is required to consider is as to whether the appointment of respondent no.5 to the post in question was made in accordance with the statutory prescription contained in Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020 and as to whether he fulfils the requisite eligibility qualification as statutorily prescribed.”

The Court added that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the Respondent does not fulfil the requisite eligibility qualification, the prayer made in the Petition for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto can be granted otherwise, the same can be refused irrespective of the fact as to whether the Petitioners have any interest in the matter or not.

“In case, it is shown and established that holder of the public office lacks the requisite qualification as prescribed by the statute or his appointment is dehors the statutory rules, a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued by the Courts, though, so far as the opinion of the selection/search committee of the merit on the candidate is concerned, since this Court would not act as an appellate authority over such opinion, interference in such a situation may be impermissible”, it emphasised.

Furthermore, the Court noted that in our country, LL.B. degree where three-year course is prescribed (except in five years integrated courses) is awarded only to a candidate who is already possessed of a graduation degree, however, that will not mean that LL.B. Degree is a post-graduate degree in law; and similarly, B.Ed. degree is also awarded to a candidate who already is in possession of a graduation degree (except in four-year integrated courses), however, B.Ed. degree in the higher education world cannot be termed to be a post-graduate degree.

“Post-graduate degree in education will be either M.A. (Education) or M.Ed. As a matter of fact, B.Ed. or LLB Degrees are not construed to be a post-graduate degree even though these degrees are obtained only after graduation”, it also observed.

The Court remarked that healthcare delivery has to be understood to be a sector where healthcare is delivered using Indian System of Medicine, however, growth and development of Indian System of Medicine or its education has to be in relation to research and other academic activities.

“In the instant case, the respondent No.5 is said to have been associated with a company or firm known as Shivayu Ayurved Limited, Nagpur which appears to be a drug manufacturer company where the respondent No.5 is said to be the Head of the R&D and F&D Departments and, therefore, we find ourselves unable to agree with the submission that experience of working in a drug manufacturing company will qualify the respondent No.5 to hold the requisite experience of a “Leader”, it further said.

The Court held that the experience of the Respondent working in a company producing Ayurvedic medicine and products cannot be said to be an experience of working as a ‘Leader’ in the capacity of “Head of a Department” or “Head of an Organization”.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, concluded, “Thus, the submission that since the Search Committee on whose recommendation respondent No.5 was appointed as Chairperson of the Commission comprise of experts and was headed by the Cabinet Secretary of Government of India and, therefore, any interference in the appointment in question herein would mean to sit in appeal over the decision of the experts, in the facts of the present case, does not hold good for the reason that it is a case where the respondent No.5 clearly lacked the essential eligibility qualification statutorily prescribed by Section 4(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020.”

The Court held that the appointment of the Respondent as NCISM Chairperson does not fulfil the requisite qualification prescribed for appointment to the said office.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and issued a Writ of Quo Warranto, quashing and setting aside the appointment of the Respondent as Chairperson of the Commission.

Cause Title- Dr. Ved Prakash Tyagi v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of AYUSH & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4914-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Nabab Singh, Apurva Upamanyu, and Suryadeep Singh.

Respondents: ASGs Chetan Sharma, Archana Dave, Senior Advocates Arun Bharadwaj, Ruchi Kohli, CGSCs Subhash Tanwar, Monika Arora, Advocates Sandeep Mishra, Naveen, Amit Gupta, Bhavi Garg, Kumar Prashant, Avnish Dave, Subhodeep Saha, Prabhat Kumar, Anamika Thakur, Ankita Chaudhary, Shreyas Balaji, Chand Kapoor, Srishti Mishra, and Neha Mishra.

Click here to read/download the Judgment