MONIKA MATTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have qualified the D.H.M.S. examination conducted by the Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab, during the period from 1987 to 1996. They complain that the Central Council of Homoeopathy is arbitrarily refusing to recognise their qualification. As a result, they are suffering a heavy,recurring and irreparable loss. The petitioners allege that the action of respondent No. 2-Central Counsil of Homoeopathy is arbitrary, unfair and illegal. They pray that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the second respondent to treat the Diploma awarded to them as a recognised qualification so as to entitle them to practise homoeopathy.

(2.) The Union of India (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) as also the Council of Homoeopathic System of Medicine, Punjab, support the claim of the petitioners. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Government of India in which it has been categorically averred that "the DHMS qualification awarded by the Council of Homoeopathic system of Medicine, Punjab, is a recognised Medical qualification and has been included in the IInd schedule to the Homoeopathy Central Council Act 1973." It has been further averred that even the Central Council of Homoeopathy made a recommendation for inclusion of the DHMS qualification awarded by the respondent No. 3, w.e.f. 1988 onwards by its letter dated 11-9-1998. Since the respondent No. 3 has switched over to the DHMS curriculum prescribed by the Central Council w.e.f. 1984 onwards, the answering respondent considered the recommendation of the respondent No. 2 and decided that since the qualification of DHMS awarded by the respondent No. 3 is included in the Schedule II of the Central Act, there is no need for putting a fresh entry in the schedule and the decision was conveyed to the respondent No. 3."

(3.) Despite the categorical averment on behalf of respondent No. 1 and a communication having been sent, to it, the Central Council insists on contesting the claim of the petitioners. A written statement has been filed along with which 32 documents have been produced. However, the case in a nutshell as pleaded on behalf of the Central Council is in the following words :-