Sunil Ambwani and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.:— We have heard Shri Prahlad Kumar Khare for the petitioner. Shri Shashi Shekhar Singh appears for Union of India. Shri J.K Tiwari represents the State respondents.
2. The petitioner-society is aggrieved by a notification issued by the Registrar of the Indian Medicine Board, U.P published in daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagaran’ from Meerut, on 26.1.2011, notifying that all those medical practitioners, who had obtained degrees from the colleges mentioned in the notification including the ‘Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Suhagpur, Dhampur, Bijnor’ allegedly affiliated with All India Ayurveda Vidyapeeth, Delhi, that since the degrees awarded by these colleges are not recognised by the Indian Medicine Central Council established under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, the persons registered with U.P Indian Medicine Board in pursuance to the qualifications from these colleges are not entitled to practice Indian medicine in the State of UP and their names have been removed from the State register of medical practitioners in Indian medicine. The notification applies to the degrees of Ayurvedacharya from petitioners college Rashtriya Mahavidyalaya Suhagpur, Dhampur, District Bijnor; Ayurved Ratan/Vaid Visharath from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag after 1967; Ayurved Shiromani from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindaban after 1967 and Ayurved Bhasker from Gurukul Vishwavidyala, Jyalapur after 1967.
3. The notification states in its opening statement that it has been issued in pursuance to directions issued by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5324 of 2007, Rajasthan Pradesh V.S Sardashahar v. Union of India and other connected Civil Appeals decided on June 1, 2010. The Supreme Court, after considering various judgments including the judgment in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab . 1998 7 SCC 579, held in paragraphs 40 and 41 as follows:
“40. In Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2007, Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctor's Assn. Mumbai v. State of Maharashtra decided on 27.2.2009, this Court considered the issue involved herein at length and came to the conclusion as under:
“So far as the claim that once the name is included in the register of a particular State is a right to practice in any part of the country is not tenable on the face of section 29 of the Central Act. The right to practice is restricted in the sense that only if the name finds place in the Central Register then the question of practicing in any part of the country arises. The conditions under section 23 of the Central Act are cumulative. Since the appellants undisputedly do not possess recognized medical qualifications as defined in section 2(1)(h) their names cannot be included in the Central Register. As a consequence, they cannot practice in any part of India in terms of section 29 because of non-inclusion of their names in the Central Register. Section 17 (3-A) of the Maharashtra Act refers to section 23 of the Central Act relating to Central Register. Section 17(1) relates to the register for the State. In any event, it is for the State to see that there is need for having qualification in terms of Second and Fourth Schedule. The claim of the appellants is that they have a right to practice in any part of the country. In terms of Article 19(6) of the Constitution, reasonable restriction can always be put on the exercise of right under Article 19(g).”
41. This Court further came to the conclusion that unless the person possesses the qualification as prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV of the Act, 1970, he cannot claim any right to practice in medical science and mere registration in any State register is of no consequence.”
4. The legal position as explained by the Supreme Court is that unless a person possesses the qualification as prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, he cannot claim any right to practice and mere registration is of no consequence.
5. The pass-outs of ‘Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Suhagpur, Dhampur, Bijnor’ got themselves registered with the U.P Indian Medicine Board on account of affiliation with All India Ayurveda Vidyapeeth, Delhi upto 1977. The name of the College, the qualifications and degrees awarded by it are not included in Schedule II, III and IV of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, and are not recognised by Indian Medicine Central Council. The members of the alleged Society (the petitioners) do not possess recognised medical qualification as defined in section 2(1)(h) of the Indian Medicine Council Act, 1970.
6. The U.P Indian Medicine Board did not have authority to register the medical practitioners, who were having qualifications from a College affiliated to All India Ayurveda Vidyapeeth, Delhi. The U.P Indian Medicine Board did not take into account that after enforcement of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 only those qualifications prescribed in Schedule II, III and IV of the Act of 1970 were valid qualifications and that the persons, who were not holding these qualifications, were not entitled to be registered with U.P Indian Medicine Board.
7. Shri Prahlad Kumar Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paras 7 and 9 of the U.P Indian Medical Institutions (Acquisition and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1982 (U.P Act No. 18 of 1982) in submitting that since this Act has received the assent of the President on April 7, 1982, the qualification prescribed by the scheduled institutions, which according to him, includes all the institutions running in the State of Uttar Pradesh and which included Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Suhagpur, Dhampur, Bijnor are valid qualifications.
8. The argument is entirely misconceived. The U.P Act No. 18 of 1982 was enacted to provide acquisition and management of certain non-Government institutions imparting instruction in Ayurvedic and Unani-Tibbi Systems of medicine; to provincialize education in such systems of medicine; to regulate the imparting of instruction in naturopathy and Yoga Therapy and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The object of the Act was not to authorise a State to run any other institution or to recognise medical education in Indian Medicine in the State of U.P The State Government had taken over the scheduled institutions namely the four medical colleges included in schedule with reference to section 2(c) of the Act for its acquisition and management. The Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Suhagpur Dhampur Bijnor is not included in the Schedule. It is a private college and continues to be run under private management. The Act did not deal with the standard of education or to provide recognition of the courses in Indian Medicine by Colleges running in the State of U.P The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 covers the field.
9. We also find that the petitioner has not annexed the list of the medical practitioners, who are the members of the petitioner society and respective qualification held by them. The writ petition filed for benefit of persons without disclosing their names and qualifications is wholly misconceived.
10. The legal position with regard to the recognition of the educational courses of Indian medicine by the Medical Colleges in the country including the State of U.P has been firmly settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Pradesh v. S. Sardarshahar's case.
11. The persons holding degrees by whatever name they may be called from Rashtriya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Suhagpur, Dhampur, Bijnor, which is not recognised by the Indian Medicine Central Council Act are not entitled to practice Indian medicine.
12. The writ petition is dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.