Ayurveda faculty recruitment conditions must conform to governing statutory regulations.

The applicants were serving as Assistant Professors/Lecturers at Government Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital, Akhnoor, on academic-arrangement engagements.

They challenged the Public Service Commission’s re-advertisement of teaching posts, disputing, among other things, eligibility through allied subjects, the higher-qualification marks criterion, the upper age limit, and the refusal to consider them for age relaxation as in-service candidates.

The recruitment conditions were based on Government Order No. 811-JK(HME) of 2020 and the Commission’s Business and Procedure Rules, as amended in 2023; the respondents maintained that the applicants’ academic arrangements did not make them regular or contractual employees eligible for in-service age relaxation.

The applicants sought, among other reliefs, modification of the recruitment conditions and permission to participate in the selection process.

1. Whether the recruitment could continue to apply the allied-subject eligibility provision in the 2020 Government Order if it was inconsistent with the Regulations governing Ayurveda education at the relevant time.

2. Whether the Commission could mechanically apply a higher-qualification criterion framed around DM/M.Ch./DNB Super-Speciality qualifications to candidates for Ayurvedic teaching posts, without adapting it to qualifications recognised in that system.

3. Whether the applicants’ academic-arrangement service could be considered when assessing their eligibility for age relaxation to participate in the regular recruitment process.

The Tribunal applied the principle that executive instructions may supplement statutory regulations where the regulations are silent, but cannot override or continue a condition inconsistent with the governing regulatory framework.

It considered the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 2016, the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Standards of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2022, and Government Order No. 811-JK(HME) of 2020 in assessing the allied-subject condition.

It also held that recruitment criteria must bear a reasonable connection to the post and must account for the qualifications and characteristics of the relevant discipline.

For age relaxation, the Tribunal treated the substance of an engagement, rather than its label alone, as relevant to fair consideration, while distinguishing eligibility to compete from any right to appointment.

No judicial precedents were cited in the order.

The Tribunal held that the 2020 Government Order could not, by itself, sustain allied-subject eligibility if that provision was inconsistent with the Regulations applicable to Ayurveda recruitment; the authorities therefore had to reassess the condition against the governing regulatory framework.

It reasoned that applying a super-speciality criterion associated with another system of medicine without adaptation could unfairly disadvantage Ayurveda candidates, and directed the Commission to take account of higher qualifications recognised in the Indian System of Medicine.

Although the applicants’ academic arrangements did not confer regular status, their service as faculty in the recruiting institution could not be disregarded for age-relaxation consideration solely because of the “academic arrangement” label.

The Tribunal emphasised that any relaxation would permit participation only; appointment would remain dependent on merit and completion of the selection process.

It set aside the 28 May 2023 advertisement only to the extent its challenged conditions were inconsistent with the governing Ayurveda Regulations; directed reconsideration of the allied-subject provision and adaptation of the higher-qualification criterion; and ordered consideration of the applicants for age relaxation in light of their academic-arrangement service.

Applicants found eligible after that exercise were to be permitted to participate, without any right to appointment or regular status; the authorities were directed to complete the exercise, preferably within 12 weeks, after which the Commission could proceed with the recruitment.

No order as to costs.