RAM CHARAN SINGRAUL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved of the fact that the private respondents, who were also candidates for selection to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon alongwith the petitioners have been given appointment despite the fact that on the date of filling up of the form for the post, which was advertised by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, the private respondents were not having their live registration with the State Veterinary Council.

(2.) Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.J.Matthew, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Part-IX of Rule 11 of the Veterinary Council Rules, 1993 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Pashu Palan Vibhag as contained in Annexure P/5 to submit that there is a deemed removal from the register of Veterinary Council on account of non-payment of the requisite fee and, therefore, the petitioners, who were in the waiting list, could have been given preference over the private respondents, whose registration was not renewed on account of non-payment of renewal fee.

(3.) Shri Nikhil Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.2/M.P.P.S.C in his turn submits that the issue herein is that what will be impact of non-payment of renewal fee and that can be deciphered from a conjoint reading of Sec. 48 and Sec. 49 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.