- (1.)HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.)THE High Court, in the case before us, has followed an earlier decision of this Court reported in Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health, Delhi Admn. Services, 1997 (11) SCC 687 to deny the relief to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, now sought to rely upon the decision of this Court reported in Mukhtiar Chand (Dr.) v. State of Punjab, 1998 (7) SCC 579 to contend that this being a three - Judge Bench judgment, the same has to be applied to the case on hand.
We are of the considered view that the judgment of the three - Judge Bench reported in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand case, 1998 (7) SCC 579 is totally different on principles as also the basis of claim therein, from the one relevant and necessary so far as the case on hand is concerned. The right of the petitioner therein to continue to practise as a registered medical practitioner was not claimed on the basis of a degree of Vaid Visharad and Ayurved Rattan awarded by Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag as in this case, before us. The efficacy of this very degree to entitle the holders thereof to continue to practise as medical practitioner by virtue of the saving clause and protection under S.17(3) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, had come up for decision in the earlier case and with particular reference to the provisions of S.14 of the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970, read with the provisions contained in the Schedules thereto it has been held that only such of those degrees issued between 1931 and 1967 were alone recognised for the purposes and not the one obtained by the petitioner in the year 1974, long after the coming into force of S.14 on 15/08/1971 in the whole of the country. In the light of the above principles which directly applied to the case of the petitioner we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.