INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance projected in the above three writ petitions is mainly connected to an enactment made by the State by way of Act No.7, i.e., of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 (for short, 'the 2001 Act') providing for commencement of a course in the medical field, conferring a degree on successful completion of 3 years and facilitate the placement as Medical Practitioner, virtually in place of Regular Doctors; despite the fact that, the field of medical education is covered by Entry No. 66 of the 'List-I' of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which comes within the exclusive domain of the Union Government.

(2.) The first among of the three writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 930 of 2001 has been filed by the Indian Medical Association - an Association of Medical Practitioners (Doctors) and some members of the Association, challenging the constitutional validity of the 2001 Act and the subsequent amendments, on various grounds. The main ground/challenge raised against the statute is that the State has no legislative competence. A declaration is also sought for, to the effect that the impugned Act is void, for being repugnant to the Union Legislation, namely, the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 (for short, 'Act of 1956') by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners also seek to quash the impugned Act for being violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Writ Petition (PIL) No. 32 of 2012 has been filed by a team of Allopathic Doctors and their Association. The challenge is against Annexure P/1 order dated 21.03.2012 therein, whereby the State had decided to convert 741 seats of 'Medical Officers' into 'Rural Medical Assistant' and to appoint ill-qualified persons to treat patients in allopathy. The main grounds of challenge are mostly similar to the grounds raised in Writ Petition No. 930 of 2012, referring to the legislative incompetence of the State to have enacted the 2001 Act and in turn, against the conversion of the posts, which otherwise could have been filled up only by appointing the qualified persons like the Petitioners therein.