NIZAMUDDIN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second round of litigation before this Court and the petitioner is aggrieved by the order by which the claim made by the petitioner for his registration as an Ayurved Medical Practitioner, has been rejected. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 909/2004. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 3-3-2004 with the following directions :--

(2.) The respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed a return adopting the return filed by the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has filed a detailed return categorically contending that the Indian Medicines Central Council Act, 1970 was promulgated by the Parliament and according to the said Act of 1970, the provisions were made for recognition of the degrees in Ayurved form of Medicines. Only those who were holding the degrees duly recognized were to be registered as Ayurved Medical Practitioner. The petitioner has obtained the degree when it was already recognized, but the same was subsequently de-recognized by the State Government by making an amendment. Even if, the petitioner was holder of such a degree, on the date of application made for registration, the degree was not recognized qualification for such registration and, therefore, rightly the application of the petitioner was rejected. This issue was dealt with by this Court in the case of Kripesh Kumar Shrivas vs. State of M.P. and others; W.P. No. 1182/2003 decided on 5-3-2003 wherein after examining the Central Law, various laws laid down by the Apex Court, this Court reached to the conclusion that on the date of making of the application, a candidate must be possessing a degree in particular field for his registration, duly recognized by the Council. It is contended that as per the law laid down by this Court, a person is to be recognized as a medical practitioner if he has to his credit a degree duly recognized by the Council. In case such a person is not having the degree duly recognized by the Council, on the date of application, he would not be registered as a medical practitioner. It is further contended that the law is well settled in respect of such a situation and even the degree granted by certain Universities were not to be treated to be valid degree for the purposes of registration of the medical practitioner. This being so, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.