- (1.)The petitioner-Maharashtra State Veterinary Council, Nagpur has challenged appointments of Live Stock Supervisors made by respondents-Zilla Parishads in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents; as also the advertisements. The petitioners have further prayed for setting aside all the appointments of Unregistered Veterinary Practitioners as Live Stock Supervisors made by the respondents-Zilla Parishads.
(2.)The petitioner-Maharashtra State Veterinary Council, is established under section 32 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (For short "the Act"). The respondents, against whom reliefs are claimed, are the Chief Executive Officers of the concerned Zilla Parishads, who have issued advertisements and made appointments of the candidates to the post of Live Stock Supervisors (Class-Ill) in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-10000. The main contention raised by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that after the coming into force of the Act, adopted by both the Houses of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly by resolution dated 29-3-1997, it was not permissible for a local authority such as Zilla Parishad to recruit candidates on the posts of Live Stock Supervisors from amongst the diploma holders, who are not entitled to be registered under the Act and, therefore, cannot be appointed to hold any office by means of section 30 of the Act.
Section 15 of the Act provides the scheme in regard to qualification for registration, on which the main challenge is based. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:

"15. Recognition of veterinary qualifications granted by veterinary institutions in India.- (1) The veterinary qualifications granted by any veterinary institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognized veterinary qualifications for the purposes of this Act.

(2) Any veterinary institution in India, which grants a veterinary qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein and any such notification may also direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such veterinary qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised veterinary qualification only when granted after a specific date. "

Admittedly, none of the recognised veterinary qualifications, prescribed in the First Schedule, is a Diploma from any University. Section 23 of the Act prescribes the maintenance of a veterinary practitioners register. It specifically provides that the register shall contain names of all persons, who possess the recognised veterinary qualifications. Sections 24 to 28 deal with the registration of Indian Veterinary Practitioners, issue of certificate of registration and registration of additional qualification and removal of names from Indian Veterinary Practitioners Register and matters connected therewith. Section 30 of the Act confers a right on registered veterinary practitioner to practise as Veterinary Practitioner and to recover charges in respect of expenses and medicines etc. to which he may be entitled. Section 30 of the Act, which confers rights on registered practitioners, reads as follows :-

"30. Right of persons who are enrolled on the Indian veterinary practitioners register.- No person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, shall-

(a) hold office as veterinary physician or surgeon or any other like office (by whatever name called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority;

(b) practise veterinary medicine in any State:

Provided that the State Government may, by order, permit a person holding a diploma or certificate of veterinary supervisor, stockman or stock assistant (by whatever name called) issued by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (by whatever name called) of any State or any veterinary institution in India, to render under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, minor veterinary services.

Explanation.- "Minor veterinary services" means the rendering of preliminary veterinary aid, like vaccination, castration, and dressing or wounds, and such other types of preliminary aid or the treatment of such ailments as the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;

(c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a veterinary health certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by duly qualified veterinary practitioner;

(d) be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or any matter relating to veterinary medicine. "

As is apparent from section 30 of the Act, it confers the following rights on a registered veterinary practitioner :

(a) to hold office of veterinary physician or surgeon;

(b) to hold a like office; and

(c) to practice veterinary medicine in any State.

These rights are conferred only on registered veterinary practitioners, which means on persons holding recognised veterinary qualifications, which alone permits registration. According to the Act, only degree holders are entitled to be registered as veterinary practitioner vide section 15 and the First Schedule. By the proviso to section 30, the State Government is empowered to permit non degree holders, such as persons holding diploma or a certificate of veterinary supervisor, stockman or stock assistant etc. to render minor veterinary services, however, under the supervision or direction of a registered veterinary practitioner. The explanation to this section defines "minor veterinary services". This is the fourth kind of right, which is conferred or reserved by the Act on persons having lesser qualifications like a diploma. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents-Zilla Parishads could not have issued any advertisements for the recruitment and, thereafter, actually recruit the persons in the posts of Live Stock Supervisors since there is an absolute bar on the recruitment of diploma holders. Further, according to the petitioner, these supervisors have been appointed for working independently on dispensary Grade-II, which is impermissible since the said persons can only render minor veterinary services under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner.

(3.)A close scrutiny of section 30 of the Act, however, does not make it possible to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner. Section 30 of the Act, in its true intent and purport and in plain terms, permits a registered veterinary practitioner to hold Office as Veterinary Physician and Surgeon and practise veterinary medicine in any State. In terms, the section does not bar those, who are not registered and also cannot be registered, from providing minor veterinary services. There is also no doubt that, in the present case, respondent-State of Maharashtra had issued such an order on 27-8-2009. It was, however, contended by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that section 30 of the Act totally prohibits a veterinary practitioner, who cannot be registered, such as diploma holder, from rendering veterinary services and, therefore, from holding the office of Veterinary Surgeon or Physician. It is not possible to accept this submission since section 30 of the Act debars a person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, only from holding the office of the Veterinary Surgeon and Physician on a core office and from practicing the veterinary medicine in any State. It does not bar the said person from holding any office other than that of the Veterinary Physician and Surgeon. Indeed, there is no dispute that a Live Stock Supervisor does not perform the work of the Veterinary Physician or Surgeon and merely performs minor veterinary services as specified in explanation to section 30 of the Act. The respondent-State has submitted a list of duties, which a Live Stock Supervisor is required to perform. A plain reading of that list at page No. 426 of the petition indicates not a single duty which appertains to the office of the Veterinary Practitioner or Surgeon but only duties referable to minor veterinary duties specified in the explanation. It was, however, contended by Mr. Patil, that the Supreme Court in Udai Singh Dagar & ors. vs. Union of India & ors., 2007 7 Scale 278, has held that persons, not holding a degree in Veterinary Sciences, cannot be employed or practice veterinary science in the State. On going through the judgment, we find that the Supreme Court has held that after coming into force of the Act, non-graduate veterinary practitioners, who are registered under the old Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, are not eligible to practice veterinary medicines on the same condition and in the same manner as they were doing prior to the coming into force of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and that the said non-graduate practitioners are not entitled to be registered as veterinary practitioners. The Supreme Court did not consider and indeed was not called upon to consider the question; whether such non-graduate veterinary practitioners can be appointed to render minor veterinary services under supervision and direction of the registered veterinary practitioner as contemplated by the proviso and explanation to section 30 of the Act. Indeed, while considering the fate of the persons, who have been employed to perform minor veterinary services, the Supreme Court, in para 60, observed as follows:
"60. Veterinary services in terms of the Central Act is in two parts (1) veterinary sendees and (2) minor veterinary services. What would be the minor veterinary services has been laid down by reason of a notification issued by the respective State Government in exercise of their power under clause (b) of section 30 of the Central Act. Once such a notification has been issued, indisputably, those who are not otherwise entitled to resort to veterinary practices within the meaning of the Central Act can be asked to perform the jobs of minor veterinary services."

In the operative part of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that the persons employed for performing the minor veterinary services would have a right to continue in service subject, of course, to carrying out their duties strictly in terms of the Notification issued by the State. In paragraph 81 of the judgment in Udai Singh Dagar & ors., (supra) the Supreme Court observed as follows :

"81. Despite our aforementioned findings, we are of the opinion that those who are in service of the State or the semi-government or local self government organizations must be held to have a right to continue in service. The employees of the State Enjoy a status. A person who enjoys a status can be deprived therefrom only in accordance with law having regard to the nature of right conferred on him under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The law in this behalf, in our opinion, is clear. Their nature of duty may change but they would be otherwise entitled to continue in service. The State of Maharashtra or for that matter even the other States have issued notification (s) in terms of clause (b) of section 30 of the Central Act. Minor veterinary services, therefore, having been specified in terms of the said notification, those certificate holders who are in the services of the State or the other semi-government organizations are entitled to continue in service, subject of course to, carryout out their duties strictly in terms of the notification issued by the State under clause (b) of section 30 of the Central Act. In the event, any State has not issued such a notification, they may do so. "