MAHARASHTRA STATE VETERINARY COUNCIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Maharashtra State Veterinary Council, Nagpur has challenged appointments of Live Stock Supervisors made by respondents-Zilla Parishads in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents; as also the advertisements. The petitioners have further prayed for setting aside all the appointments of Unregistered Veterinary Practitioners as Live Stock Supervisors made by the respondents-Zilla Parishads.

(2.) The petitioner-Maharashtra State Veterinary Council, is established under section 32 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (For short "the Act"). The respondents, against whom reliefs are claimed, are the Chief Executive Officers of the concerned Zilla Parishads, who have issued advertisements and made appointments of the candidates to the post of Live Stock Supervisors (Class-Ill) in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-10000. The main contention raised by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that after the coming into force of the Act, adopted by both the Houses of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly by resolution dated 29-3-1997, it was not permissible for a local authority such as Zilla Parishad to recruit candidates on the posts of Live Stock Supervisors from amongst the diploma holders, who are not entitled to be registered under the Act and, therefore, cannot be appointed to hold any office by means of section 30 of the Act.

(3.) A close scrutiny of section 30 of the Act, however, does not make it possible to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner. Section 30 of the Act, in its true intent and purport and in plain terms, permits a registered veterinary practitioner to hold Office as Veterinary Physician and Surgeon and practise veterinary medicine in any State. In terms, the section does not bar those, who are not registered and also cannot be registered, from providing minor veterinary services. There is also no doubt that, in the present case, respondent-State of Maharashtra had issued such an order on 27-8-2009. It was, however, contended by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that section 30 of the Act totally prohibits a veterinary practitioner, who cannot be registered, such as diploma holder, from rendering veterinary services and, therefore, from holding the office of Veterinary Surgeon or Physician. It is not possible to accept this submission since section 30 of the Act debars a person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, only from holding the office of the Veterinary Surgeon and Physician on a core office and from practicing the veterinary medicine in any State. It does not bar the said person from holding any office other than that of the Veterinary Physician and Surgeon. Indeed, there is no dispute that a Live Stock Supervisor does not perform the work of the Veterinary Physician or Surgeon and merely performs minor veterinary services as specified in explanation to section 30 of the Act. The respondent-State has submitted a list of duties, which a Live Stock Supervisor is required to perform. A plain reading of that list at page No. 426 of the petition indicates not a single duty which appertains to the office of the Veterinary Practitioner or Surgeon but only duties referable to minor veterinary duties specified in the explanation. It was, however, contended by Mr. Patil, that the Supreme Court in Udai Singh Dagar & ors. vs. Union of India & ors., 2007 7 Scale 278, has held that persons, not holding a degree in Veterinary Sciences, cannot be employed or practice veterinary science in the State. On going through the judgment, we find that the Supreme Court has held that after coming into force of the Act, non-graduate veterinary practitioners, who are registered under the old Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, are not eligible to practice veterinary medicines on the same condition and in the same manner as they were doing prior to the coming into force of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and that the said non-graduate practitioners are not entitled to be registered as veterinary practitioners. The Supreme Court did not consider and indeed was not called upon to consider the question; whether such non-graduate veterinary practitioners can be appointed to render minor veterinary services under supervision and direction of the registered veterinary practitioner as contemplated by the proviso and explanation to section 30 of the Act. Indeed, while considering the fate of the persons, who have been employed to perform minor veterinary services, the Supreme Court, in para 60, observed as follows: