- (1.) THE State of Uttar Pradesh and the authorities of Medical Health Services have come up in appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge quashing an order passed by the Civil Surgeon, Saha- ranpur on 30th May, 1968. By this order the Civil Surgeon directed all the Medical Officers In-charge of Zila Parishad Dispensa ries in the district of Saharanpur that they were not authorised to do Medico- legal work at the dispensary as they were not fully qualified for this work.
(2.) IT is not disputed that all the Medical Officers of the Zila Parishad Dis pensaries, who are respondents before us, being aurveda graduates were registered medi cal practitioners within meaning of Indian Medicine Act, 1939. Section 39 (4) of that Act provides: "39 (1) .................................... (4) A registered practitioner shall be en titled to (a) sign or authenticate a birth or death certificate required by any law or rule to be signed or authenticated by a duly quali fied medical practitioner; (b) sign or authenticate a medical or physical fitness certificate required by any law or rule to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner; (c) give evidence at any inquest or in any Court of law as an expert under Sec tion 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 on any matter relating to medicine, surgery or midwifery." Section 41 (2) of the Act provides that the registered practitioners shall have the same privileges as the medical practitioners regis tered under the U. P. Medical Act, 1917, have under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910, or any other Act for the time being in force. It is apparent from Section 39 (1) that the expression "legally qualified medical practi tioner" or duly qualified medical practitioner or any word importing that a person is re cognised by law as a medical practitioner or member of medical profession shall in all Acts in force in Uttar Pradesh and in all Central Acts in so far as such Acts relate to any of the matters specified in List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Cons titution be deemed to include a registered practitioner. It is thus clear that the Aurvedic practitioners, who have been granted the requisite diploma and who were deemed to be the registered practitioners are also deem ed to be the legally qualified medical prac titioners within meaning of Indian Medicine Act. They are entitled to do the various acts as well as to the same privileges as the Medical practitioners registered under the U. P. Medical Act, 1917.
(3.) IT appears that the Government received some complaints against the com petence of Aurvedic practitioners who were acting as Medical Officers of the Zila Pari-shad Dispensaries. In October, 1966 the Government constituted a committee and charged it with the duty of examining whe ther such practitioners should be permitted to do medico-legal work and to submit its report within a fortnight. In November, 1966, the committee submitted its report after examining the various curricula and the courses prescribed by the various Aur vedic Colleges. It found that the Aurvedic practitioners were deficient in qualifications. The State Government appears to have ac cepted this report and to have issued ins tructions to the Civil Surgeons of the various districts to see that the Aurvedic practitioners are not permitted to do medico-legal work. In the context of these instruc tions the Civil Surgeon, Saharanpur passed the impugned order dated 30th May, 1968 prohibiting the medical officers of the Zila Parishad Dispensaries from doing any medi co-legal work. It is not disputed that the medico-legal work includes giving of evi dence at any inquest or in any Court of law as an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act on any matter relating to medicine, surgery or midwifery.;