- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri K. D. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Dr. Madhu Tandon, learned Brief Holder of the State of U. P, representing the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for the following two reliefs: " (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respon dents from interfering in the rights of the petitioners to carry on their private medical practice in Indian Medicine at district Pilibhit. " " (b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respon dents from prohibiting the petitioners to keep the primary instruments of diagnosis of Indian Medicines namely Stethascope, Thermometers B. P. instruments etc. and to provide first aid to the people in immediate requirement of medical areas as a part of practice of lndian medicines. " The foundation of the claim of the petitioners for the relief sought is their passing of "vaidya Visharad" and "ayurved-Ratna" examination from Hindi Sahitya Samntellan, Prayag. Section 14 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, hereinafter called the Act', deals with the recognition of medical qualifications granted by cer tain medical institutions in India. Sub-sec tion (1) of Section 14 of the Act says that the medical qualifications granted by any University, Board or other medical in stitution in India which arc included in the Second Schedule shall be recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of the Act. Entry No. 105 of the Second Schedule includes qualifications "vaidya Visharad" and "ayurved-Ratna" from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag as recognised qualifications. But, remark in column (4) against the entry shows that the qualifications "vaidya Visharad" and "ayurved-Ratna" were recognized qualifications during the period 1961 and 1967. Thus, the above qualification if ac quired subsequent to the year 1967 are not covered by the expression "recognised medical qualifications" for the purpose of Section 14 of the Act.
(3.) IF is not disputed that the petitioner acquired the qualifications of "vaidya Visharad" and "ayurved- Ratna" subsequent to the year 1967. Therefore, they cannot be deemed to possess recog nised medical qualifications for the pur pose of the Act. Section 17 of the Act provides that save as provided in Section 28, no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine shall practice Indian medicine in any state. Thus, the minimum twin requirements for right to practice in Indian medicine in any State are (1) pos session of a recognised medical qualifica tion ; and (2) enrolment on a State Register or Central Register of Indian medicine. Although the petitioner allege to posses medical qualification of "vaidya Visharad" and "ayurved- Ratna" but these qualifications having been acquired sub sequent to the year 1967 are not recog nised medical qualifications envisaged in Section 14 read with Second Schedule of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners do not possess recognised medical qualifications, and are not. entitled to practice Indian medicine in any State.;