LAWS(BOM)-2009-3-119

NEELAM NARAYAN BANSODE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 17, 2009
NEELAM NARAYAN BANSODE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be a member registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and has averred that the State is responsible for implementing and enforcing the provisions of Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966 in all concerned establishments. Section 3 of the said Act provides that the State of Maharashtra by notification in the Official Gazette is supposed to establish Maharashtra Nursing Council which is to be constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As per the prescribed constitution, the Council is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with right to perform different functions in terms of the Act. The Council is to consist of ex officio members, elected members and nominated members. The State Government is to nominate four members to the Council, out of whom one shall be a Public Health Nurse and three shall be from amongst the medical practitioners or teachers in nursing colleges and notify in the Official Gazette. The expression, "College" has not been defined in the Act and for that purpose, the petitioner relies upon the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 which defines "College" to mean a college conducted by the University, or affiliated to the University. The petitioner further submitted that election for the post of members of the Council was also held, the result of which was declared on 30th May, 2008. Thereafter, by notification dated 24th September, 2008 in terms of section 3(3)(c) of the Act, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, amongst others were nominated as members of the Council. Exhibit 'B' to the petition is the notification dated 24th September, 2008 issued by the State. Reference is also made to the provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965, though even that Act does not define the word "College" but the word "medical practitioner" has been defined under section 2(d) which reads as follows: "2(d) "medical practitioner" or "practitioner" means a person who is engaged in the practice of modern scientific medicine in any of its branches including surgery and obstetrics, but not including veterinary medicine or surgery or the Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathic or Biochemic system of medicine;

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 is working and holding the post of sister tutor in Civil Hospital at Thane which, according to the petitioner, is not a Nursing College and as such respondent No. 2 is not a teacher as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The Civil Hospital, Thane runs only diploma course. On this premise, the petitioner contended that respondent No. 2 is neither a teacher nor the civil hospital is a Nursing College. Thus, respondent No. 2 is unqualified and does not possess the essential qualification stated under section 3(3)(c) for being nominated as a Member of the Council. Similarly, respondent No. 3 is not a medical practitioner as he is only a Homeopath and such medical science is not covered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965 and as such the said respondent is, thus, not qualified to be nominated as a member of the Council. Resultantly, it is prayed that the appointment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be quashed by the Court and the Council be directed to function in accordance with law. It is also averred that the affairs of the Council are not being conducted properly.