AYUSH Drug Analysts Have No Promotion Path; Karnataka HC Directs State To Consider Their Representations Within 4 Months

In brief

The question

Whether the State should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations seeking a promotional avenue for AYUSH Drug Analysts, in light of the absence of promotion under the applicable rules

The court held

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 10 August 2021 and 8 September 2023, keeping in mind Raghunath Prasad Singh and V. Jagannadha Rao, and to pass appropriate orders within four months from the date the order was uploaded to the website

It also directed

The Court did not itself order creation of a promotional channel.

01Facts

The petitioners were appointed as Drug Analysts in the Department of AYUSH on 6 February 2017, and their probation was declared satisfactorily completed on 27 August 2019.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 5, 8

The applicable Karnataka Ayurveda Unani Siddha Homoeopathy Nature Cure and Yoga (AYUSH) (Non-Teaching) (Recruitment) Rules, 2012 provided no promotional avenue for Drug Analysts.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 5, 8

The petitioners sought consideration of their representations requesting a promotional opportunity.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 5, 8

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal recognised the absence of such an avenue but declined to direct its creation, leaving the Government to decide a pending proposal to amend the rules.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 5, 8

The petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 2, 5, 8

02Issues

i.Whether the State should be directed to consider the petitioners’ representations seeking a promotional avenue for AYUSH Drug Analysts, in light of the absence of promotion under the applicable rules

pp. 5–8 · ¶ 5–8

ii.Whether the Court should itself direct the creation of a promotional channel for the petitioners

p. 8 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

The Court considered the Karnataka AYUSH (Non-Teaching) (Recruitment) Rules, 2012, which did not provide Drug Analysts with a promotional opportunity

p. 5 · ¶ 5

It relied on Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar, 1988 Supp SCC 519, for the principle that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service, as their absence may cause stagnation and diminish efficiency

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 7

It also relied on V. Jagannadha Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 10 SCC 401, which stated that the Government should consider the feasibility and desirability of providing a promotional channel, subject to employees being qualified for higher posts

p. 6 · ¶ 6

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

p. 2

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the applicable rules left Drug Analysts without a promotional avenue and noted that a proposal to amend the rules was pending with the State Government

p. 5 · ¶ 5

Applying the cited Supreme Court decisions, it considered the need to address stagnation and provide reasonable promotional prospects.

pp. 6–8 · ¶ 6–8

It did not direct the State to create a promotional channel; instead, it held that there was no impediment to directing the State to consider the petitioners’ representations in light of those precedents

pp. 6–8 · ¶ 6–8