SHUBHRA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.