SHIVRAM KRISHNA WANMORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners were appointed to the posts of Live Stock Supervisor in the employment of the Government of Maharashtra (first Respondent). While the Petitioners were in service, they completed two years diploma course in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science conducted by the Animal Husbandry Department of the first RespondentState of Maharashtra and they were granted "Diploma in Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science".

(2.) The Petitioners are relying upon the provisions of the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1971"). It is contended that the diploma held by the Petitioners was one of the prescribed qualifications incorporated in the schedule to the said Act of 1971 and that is how the names of the Petitioners were entered in the register of the Veterinary Practitioners maintained by the first Respondent State of Maharashtra in accordance with Section 15 read with Section 18 of the said Act of 1971. It is pointed out that the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 ( hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1984") was enacted by the Parliament. The State Legislature repealed the said Act of 1971. The said Act of 1984 was enforced in the State of Maharashtra with effect from 1st August 1997. It is pointed out that the Veterinary Practitioners' Association of Maharashtra filed Writ Petition No.4619 of 1997 in this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 26th April 2006 held that the nongraduate veterinary practitioners who were already registered under the said Act of 1971 prior to repeal of the said Act of 1971 have been duly protected under Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the said Act of 1984 and they need not be covered by limitations put under Section 30 of the said Act of 1984. Only one prayer in the Writ Petition was granted. However, another prayer for declaration that the diploma holders or nongraduate veterinary practitioners should be allowed to be enrolled as veterinary practitioners under the said Act of 1984 was rejected. The Petitioners in the said Petition filed a Special Leave Petition No.11880 of 2006 for challenging the judgment and order dated 26th April 2006 to the extent to which the second prayer [prayer clause (b)] was rejected. There was another Petition being Writ Petition No.4 of 2005 directly filed before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for challenging the validity of Section 30 of the said Act of 1984. The contention of the Petitioners in this Petition is that while rejecting the Writ Petition and the Special Leave Petition, the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.4619 of 1997 was specifically upheld by the Apex Court. The cause of action for filing the present Petition is that the Petitioners have learnt that the second Respondent the Maharashtra State Veterinary Council has not renewed the registration of the Petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has taken us through the judgment and order dated 26th April 2006 in Writ Petition No.4619 of 1997. His submission is that the Division Bench held that the diploma holders who were duly registered under the said Act of 1971 were entitled to the protection of Subsection (1) of Section 23 of the said Act of 1984 and the prohibition under Section 30 therein shall not apply. He submitted that the State Government did not challenge the judgment of the Division Bench to the extent to which the aforesaid relief was granted to the Petitioners therein but the Petitioners therein had challenged the judgment of the Division Bench to the extent to which the other prayers were rejected. He has taken us through the common judgment and order of the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4619 of 1997 as well as the Writ Petition directly filed before the Apex Court. The said decision is in the case of Uday Singh Dagar and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2007 AIR(SC) 2599. He submits that the judgment of the Division Bench stands and, therefore, the Petitioners who are the diploma holders, who have been registered under the said Act of 1971, are entitled to practice as veterinary practitioners by virtue of Sub section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act of 1984 and that the prohibition under Section 30 shall not apply.