SHUBHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2012-4-8
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 09,2012

SHUBHRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BARIN GHOSH, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the legality of Rule 9(i)(b) of The Uttarakhand Medical (Ayurvedic and Unani) Group 'B' Service Rules, 2010, where it has been provided that, for Medical Officer, Ayurvedic and Unani, it shall be essential for the candidate to be registered as Vaidya or Hakeem with the INdian Medical Council, Uttarakhand.
(2.) FACTS, to which there appears to be no dispute, are that the petitioner obtained a provisional registration from the Indian Medical Council, Uttarakhand, on 20th March, 2008. In terms of Section 28 of The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), provisional registration is granted by a State Council in order to enable a person to complete training for the purpose of obtaining a recognised medical qualification. There is also no dispute that, after the petitioner obtained the medical qualification mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Act and declared as recognised medical qualification by Section 14(2) of the Act, she got herself registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine, Punjab, on 16th November, 2009. It is the contention in the writ petition that, in terms of Section 17 of the Act, since the petitioner is in one of the State Registers, she is entitled to hold an office in the Government and, accordingly, insistence on the part of the Government that she is required to be registered with the Indian Medical Council, Uttarakhand, is in breach of her right as vested by the Act. It is being contended that every person, who is registered with the State Register, has equal right and, by inserting the provision challenged in the writ petition, the State Government is seeking to make two classes amongst the same people, which is not permissible in law and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is the contention of the State Government that, in terms of Section 17(2)(a) of the Act, the State Government cannot permit, even for a second, a person to hold the office of a Physician or other office in the Government unless the person possesses the recognised medical qualification and is also registered on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine. It is the contention of the State Government that, therefore, it is a requirement of law for the State Government to ensure that the person, to be permitted to hold such office, is not only in possession of a recognised medical qualification, but is also enrolled on a State Register. In order to make sure that the person, so to be permitted to hold office, not only has a recognised medical qualification but is also enrolled on a State Register, the State Government has insisted that the person concerned should be registered with Indian Medical Council, Uttarakhand. It is the contention of the State Government that, if a person is registered with the Indian Medical Council, Uttarakhand, the State Government will be in a position to verify whether the claim of such registration is true or not. In other words, the State Government contended that, in the event, persons enrolled with other State Medical Councils / Boards are also permitted to hold such office, before permitting those persons to hold such office, the State Government will be required to verify from such other State Councils / Boards as regards registration of those persons with them and that will be inconvenient. It has been stated that, for that purpose only, the State has insisted for registration with the State Council. The counsel for the petitioner contended that, thereby, the State has created two separate classes; one registered with the State Council and the other registered with other State Councils / Boards, of same people in the matter of giving appointments, which is not permissible in view of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE fact remains that it is a requirement of Section 17 of the Act for the State Government to ensure that the person not only possesses recognised medical qualification, but is also enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register, to permit such a person to hold the office as mentioned in the said Section. In terms of Chapter IV of the Act, a person is enrolled in the Central Council no sooner he is enrolled in the State Council. If the Registrar is satisfied that the person concerned is eligible under the Act to be registered, such a person may also be registered in the Central Council. Every person, who is enrolled on the Central Register, is required to notify the change of place of residence and practice. Every State Council is required to inform the Central Council as regards enrollments made with it after the first day of April of each year. An enrollment in the Central Council will be notified by publication in the Gazette of India. Despite being enrolled with the Punjab Board in 2009, as yet, it does not appear to be the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been registered with the Central Council and, accordingly, Gazette of India, publishing her name as registered with the Central Council, has not been made available to the Court. THE claim that the petitioner is registered with the Punjab Board is, accordingly, required to be verified. For that purpose, the State would be required to make an endeavour. In the circumstances, insistence on the part of the State that the person to be appointed by it in the Government should be registered with the Indian Medical Council, Uttarakhand, cannot be said to be so unreasonable that the same may be struck down by the Court for purported violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.