HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 7485 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record. 1. Learned counsel for petitioner forgoes his right to file a rejoinder affidavit and therefore the petition is being adjudicated upon in its absence. 2. Heard Mr. Ram Raj and Mrs. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1, Mr. Ravi Shankar Tewari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as Mr. Devak Vardhan learned counsel for opposite party no.3. 3. Petition has been filed challenging Advertisement No.D-2/E-1/2025 dated 08.05.2025, insofar it relates to selection on the post of Lecturer (Specialist) Ain, Uzn, Anaf, Halaq wa Asnan. 4. Certain concomitant prayers have also been made for a direction to the state government and the U.P. Public Service Commission to revise, amend or reissue the impugned advertisement with regard to the aforesaid post in conformity with the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (Minimum Essential Standards, Assessment and Rating for Postgraduate Institutions and Minimum Standards of Postgraduate Unani Education) Regulations, 2024 and for holding of recruitment on the said post in terms of the Regulations of 2024. 5. It has been submitted that earlier the U.P. State Ayurvedic and Unani Colleges Teachers Service Rules, 1990 were notified in terms of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India specifically indicating academic qualifications required for the post of Lecturer in Unani as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1990. 6. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Raj, Radhika Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Devak Vardhan, Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya) Dr. Nadeem Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Ayush (Unani) Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) It is further submitted that subsequently the central government notified the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 and Regulations in exercise of powers conferred under Section 55 of the said Act were notified on 26.09.2024. It is submitted that due to promulgation of the Act of 2020 and the notification of 2024, it is the Act and the said Rules which would have primacy over the Rules of 1990. 7. Learned counsel has specifically adverted to Rule 32 of the Regulations 2024 in which it has been provided that for post graduates speciality or program, particularly in the field of Amraze Uzn, Anaf, Halaq the related speciality/allied subjects of Ilmul Jarahat or Moalajat are required to be taken into consideration. He has thereafter adverted to the Rules of 1990 to submit that the eligibility conditions for purposes of recruitment on the post of Lecturer in Unani does not include the related specialty/allied subjects and therefore the impugned advertisement having been issued in pursuance of the Rules of 1990 but without taking into account the Regulations of 2024, is vitiated and is required to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2 have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in the State of U.P., the regulations as notified by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine had not been enforced and recruitment for the post of Lecturers in Unani are required to be conducted as per the Rules of 1990. 9. It has also been submitted that the state government vide its letter dated 21.02.2025 informed the U.P. Public Service Commission that due to unavailability of candidates having teaching experience in the aforesaid subjects, the candidates having teaching experience in the equivalent subject of Ilmul Jarahat/ Moalajat shall not be treated as suitable or eligible. 10. It is also submitted that the subject for which the Rules of 1990 were notified comes within purview of Entry 25 of the concurrent list of the Constitution of India and therefore, the state government was fully empowered to notify the aforesaid Rules of 1990 which alone would be applicable in the State of U.P. 11. 12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the Rules of 1990, the preamble thereto clearly indicates that the said rules were framed in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 13.Article 309, specifically proviso thereto, indicates that Rules made in exercise of powers thereof would be applicable and continue until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of appropriate legislature and under Article 309, any WRIA No. 7485 of 2025 2 Rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. 14. It is therefore evident that at the time of notification of the Rules, 1990, the aspect of eligibility for recruitment on the post of Lecturer in Unani was not an occupied field due to which the Rules of 1990 were enforced in terms of proviso to Article 309. As noticed herein above, such Rules would be applicable until a provision on that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate legislature. 15. It is also evident that it is in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of the concurrent list of the Constitution of India that the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 was promulgated. Entry 25 invokes an exclusion clause with regard to entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-1. 16. It is admitted between the parties as also evident from the reading of the aforesaid entries that the said entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of list-1 are inapplicable in the present case which would be governed by Entry 25 of the concurrent list. 17. It is evidently in exercise of this power that the Act of 2020 was promulgated by Parliament. With regard to dichotomy in the Rules of 1990 with the Regulations of 2024, it is evident that while the Rules of 1990 specifically indicate qualifications for Lecturer in Unani being limited only to the subjects of Jorahat Chasm, Amraze Ujan and Halaq, the Regulations 2024 go step farther with related specialties/allied subjects of Ilmul Jarahat or Moalajat also being indicated therein. 18.Petitioner is seeking the benefit of the related specialities/allied subjects . 19. It is thus evident that there appears to be contradiction in the eligibility for recruitment on the post of Lecturer in Unani to the aforesaid extent. 20. In view thereof, it would be helpful to address the issue in the light of Article 254 (1) of the Constitution of India regarding inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the legislature of State. The said Article provides where a law made by legislature of the State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent list contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an existing law with respect to any matter enumerated in concurrent list where law made by State is repugnant in provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, then the law made by Parliament, subject to provisions of Clause (2 ) of Article 254, shall prevail and the law made by legislature of the State shall to that extent of repugnancy be void. WRIA No. 7485 of 2025 3 21. WRIA No. 7485 of 2025 3 21. Clause (2) of Article 254 obviously on a bare perusal does not apply in the present facts and circumstances of the case where the law made by the State is prior in day to the law enacted by parliament. 22. The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P and Ors reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617 in the following manner:- 61. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.15 while dealing with the provisions of the Medical Council of India Act and referring to List III Entry 25 and List I Entry 66 with reference to Articles 245, 246, 254 and 15(4) of the Constitution, spelled out the supremacy of the Council and the provisions of the Central Act, particularly in relation to the control and regulation of higher education. It also discussed providing of the eligibility conditions and qualifications and determining the standards to be maintained by the institutions. This Court in para 36 of the judgment held as under (SCC pp. 154-55) "36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by List III Entry 25. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise a of powers under List 1 Entry 66. For example, a State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under List 1 Entry 66. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher b education. Standards of education in an institution or college depend on various factors. Some of these are: (1) the calibre of the teaching staff: (2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in the given span of time; (3) the student-teacher ratio; (4) the ratio between the students and the hospital beds available to each student: (5) the calibre of the students admitted to the institution: (6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital facilities for training in the case of medical colleges: (7) adequate accommodation for the college and the attached hospital; and (8) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which the papers are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged." 63. In Jaya Gokul Educational Trustto this Court while referring to State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute? took the view that where the provisions of the State Act overlap and are in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various areas, the matters which are specifically covered under the Central Act cannot be undermined and WRIA No. 7485 of 2025 4 they shall prevail. The Court further stated that a provision in the Universities Act requiring the university to obtain merely the views of the State Government could not be characterised as requiring "approval" of the State Government. If the university statute could be so interpreted, such a provision requiring b approval of the State Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section 10(k) of the AICTE Act and would, therefore, be void. 64. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya" this Court. while dealing with the provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in the present case, held that the field of teachers' education and matters connected therewith stood fully and completely occupied by the Act and hence the State Legislature could not encroach upon that field. 65. In Engg. Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. 17 this Court was dealing with a direct conflict between the two provisions of different Acts and stated that direct conflict arises not only where the provisions of one of the Acts has to be disobeyed if the other is followed but also where both laws lead to different results. Extending the doctrine of repugnancy to d that situation, the Court held in para 18 of the judgment that the Central law shall prevail. The said para reads as under: (SCC p. 46) "18. In terms of clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India where a law made by the legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List contains any provisions repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an existing law with respect to the matters, then the law so made by the legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for consideration of the President and has received its assent, prevail in that State. It is not in dispute that the 1983 Act has received the assent of the President of India and, thus, would prevail over any parliamentary law governing the same field." 66. From the above consistent view of this Court it is clear that wherever the field is covered by the parliamentary law in terms of List I and List III. the law made by the State Legislature would, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. Of course, there has to be a direct conflict between the laws. The direct conflict is not necessarily to be restricted to the obedience of one resulting in disobedience of the other but even where the result of one would be in conflict with the other. It is difficult to state any one principle that would uniformly be applicable to all cases of repugnancy. It will have to be seen in the facts of each case while keeping in mind the laws which are in conflict with each other. Where the field is occupied by the Centre, subject to the exceptions stated in Article 254, the State law would void. 23. The aforesaid judgment as well as same aspect has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. reported in ( 2025) 2 SCC 1: 2024 SCC Online SC 3184. 24. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that the Rules notified by the state government are in apparent contradiction with the Regulations of 2024 notified in terms of the Act of 2020 and therefore in terms of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, particularly relating to Entry 25 of the concurrent list, the same would have primacy over Rules of 1990. 25. In view thereof, the impugned Advertisement No. D-2/E-1/2025 dated WRIA No. 7485 of 2025 5 08.05.2025 to the extent it relates to selection on the post of Lecturer (Specialist) Ain, Uzn, Anaf, Halaq wa Asnan is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to the U.P. Public Service Commission (opposite party no.2) to issue a fresh advertisement only with regard to the recruitment on the post of Lecturer (Specialist) Ain, Uzn, Anaf, Halaq wa Asnan strictly in terms of the Regulations of 2024. 26. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. 27. Parties to bear their own cost. September 8, 2025 Shahnaz WRIA No. 7485 of 2025 6 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench