DR. HARJOT KAMAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions are at the instance of various persons, who claim to be registered Medical Practitioners in Indian Medicine and their grievance is that, in the election of office bearers to the State and the Central Councils of Indian Medicine, the Registrar had sought for compulsory registration of all the Medical Practitioners within the State of Punjab, whose registration was due to expire after 5 years on the pain of being removed from the State roll of members. The removal, it is stated, was in the process of updation of the State Register that would have an immediate ramification in the preparation of the electoral roll containing names of persons, who would become eligible to contest elections for the State body and also to cast the votes in the election. From amongst the representatives in the State Council depending on the number of members, they would have representations in the Central Council as well. The grievance of the petitioners is that, several of the members had been disenfranchised by deletion of names by the State Board from the State Register.

(2.) In CWP No.4012 of 2011 instituted in March, 2011, the petitioner seeks for quashing of notification issued on 15.11.2010 (Annexure P-12) in the gazette of India, by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, allocating one seat for Ayurveda, and one seat for Unani for the Central Council of the Indian Medicines for Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha systems of Medicine (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Central Council'). The petitioner also seeks for quashing of the updated list of Civil Writ Petition No.4012 of 2011 (O&M) -5- voters prepared by the Returning Officer of the Punjab Board of Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha systems of Medicine. There is a prayer for permission to vote in the forthcoming elections and also to contest the election for members of the Central Council.

(3.) In CWP No.4657 of 2011, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the appointment of one Sanjeev Goyal as the Returning Officer and for his removal alleging that the 4th respondent is only an Ayurvedic Medical Officer, which is the lowest post in the hierarchy of Ayurvedic doctors in the State Government and this appointment was lower than the rank of the Deputy Secretary of the State, which, according to the petitioner, was the minimum qualification necessary to hold the post. The petitioner's contention is founded on an instruction dated 10.08.2010 alleged to have been issued upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's direction to the Secretary, Patna, that in the manner of appointment of a Returning Officer, the Central Government was recommending that the State Council shall nominate a person not below the rank of the Deputy Secretary.