Delhi HC Dismisses Plea Against Ayurveda Board President | Says Appointment Not Ultra Vires As Candidate Met Leader Experience Norm Under NCISM Act
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of the President of the Board of Ayurveda. The Bench directed that the petition lacked merit as the appointee satisfied all statutory requirements, including the essential qualification and experience stipulated under Section 19(2) of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020. The court held that the respondent fulfilled the requirement of having at least fifteen years of experience in the field and seven years in a leadership role relevant to the post.
The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the appointment violated statutory criteria and concluded that the respondent held the qualifications and leadership experience necessary under the law. Accordingly, the writ petition and connected applications were dismissed without any order as to costs.
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed as a Public Interest Litigation seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent no.3 as the President of the Board of Ayurveda, an autonomous body constituted under Section 18 of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 (NCISM Act, 2020).
The petitioner contended that respondent no.3 did not meet the statutory requirements under Section 19(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020, which prescribes that the President and Members of the Board must be persons of outstanding ability, proven administrative capacity, and integrity. They must also possess a postgraduate degree in the concerned field and have at least fifteen years of experience, including a minimum of seven years as a "leader" in the area of health, growth, and development of education in Indian System of Medicine.
Relying on a response received under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Central Council of Indian Medicine, the petitioner argued that respondent no.3 lacked the requisite seven years of experience as a leader. The RTI response disclosed academic experience designations held by respondent no.3, which the petitioner claimed did not demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirement of leadership experience.
The respondents, including the Union of India and the concerned autonomous boards, submitted counter affidavits contesting the maintainability and merits of the petition. They argued that the petition was not filed bona fide and that Public Interest Litigations are generally not maintainable in-service matters. However, the Bench held that in proceedings seeking a writ of quo warranto, the issue of locus standi loses relevance as per the judgements in Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat.
The affidavits submitted by respondents detailed the professional experience of respondent no.3. The experience was classified under academic/research positions and roles held as head of departments or organisations. The academic and leadership roles held by respondent no.3 included positions such as Lecturer, Reader, Professor, Principal, Head of Department, and Director of Postgraduate Studies in various Ayurvedic institutions from 2004 through 2021.
The respondents contended that the petitioner’s reliance on the RTI reply was misplaced as it omitted key positions held by respondent no.3, particularly his tenure as Head of Department, Principal, and Director in various Ayurvedic institutions. The affidavits clarified that these omitted roles collectively constituted more than twelve years of leadership experience, which fulfilled the statutory requirement of at least seven years.
The court then proceeded to evaluate whether the criteria under Section 19(2) of the NCISM Act, 2020 were met by respondent no.3 at the time of his appointment.
The court recorded: “Since a writ of Quo Warranto has been sought in these proceedings, the issue of locus of the petitioner loses its relevance.” The Bench referred to Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, stating in paragraph 17:
“The quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an independent substantive public office or franchise or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office... the procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making appointments to public office against law.”
In analysing the statutory provision, the court quoted Section 19(2) and observed: “for being appointed as President of the Board, candidate concerned should not only have a postgraduate degree to his credit but should also have experience of not less than fifteen years in the field concerned, out of which seven years shall be as a ‘leader’.”
Evaluating the evidence, the Bench noted that the RTI reply relied upon by the petitioner “does not contain the petitioner’s experience of working as head of Dravyaguna at Karnataka Ayurved Medical College, Bengaluru…as Principal Ayurved College, Coimbatore…Principal Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College, Bengaluru…and also as Director, Postgraduate Studies, Sushrutha Ayurvedic Medical College, Bengaluru.”
The court concluded: “The experience gained by respondent no.3 as head of the department…Principal…as also as Director…would in our opinion count as experience as ‘leader’.”
The Bench added: “The details of experience as disclosed…only discloses the academic designation…does not however, disclose that while holding these academic positions, respondent no.3 was also Head of the Department and Principal.”
Furthermore, it stated: “The record available before us…clearly shows that petitioner acquired his BAMS qualification in the year 1993 and MD qualification in the year 2004 whereafter, he worked as Lecturer, Reader, Professor…right from 2004 till the date of advertisement, i.e. 16.01.2021.”
The Bench remarked: “If we count the service rendered by respondent no.3 as Head of Department of Dravyaguna…as Principal…Director of Postgraduate Studies…we find that he has about 12 years of experience…thus the requirement of experience as a ‘leader’ as prescribed in Section 19…being seven years, respondent no.3 fulfils the said requirement.”
“Apart from fulfilling the requirement of seven years’ experience as ‘leader’, respondent no.3…has been a practitioner in Ayurveda…also fulfils the requisite experience of more than 15 years in his field.”
The court stated: “We find that respondent no.3 at the time the advertisement for the post of President of the Board was made, fulfilled the requisite qualification including the requisite experience.”
“Therefore, it cannot be said that he has been appointed on the post in question dehors the statutory prescription.”
“He cannot be termed as usurper of the office in question.”
The court issued the final directive as follows: “We find that the writ petition lacks merit which resultantly, is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s).”
“There will be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Ms. Apurva Upmanyu, and Mr. Nabab Singh, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC, Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Naveen, Ms. Bhavi Garg, Mr. Subhrodeep Saha, Ms. Anamika Thakur, and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocates for UoI; Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG with Mr. Kumar Prashant and Mr. Avnish Dave, Advocates; Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv with Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, and Mr. Shreyas Balaji, Advocates
Case Title: Dr Raghunandan Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4913-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 10836/2021
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
[Read/Download order]
