Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Veterinary Council vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 December, 2010
Author: S. A. Bobde
Bench: S. A. Bobde, P. D. Kode
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2360/2007
Maharashtra State Veterinary Council,
through its Registrar, Near Udyog Bhavan,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fishery Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
4. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
5. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
6. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
7. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd.,
through its Director, ICC Tower, 5th Floor,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::
2
8. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Buldhana.
9. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gondia.
10. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
11. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Pune.
12. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nashik.
13. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Sangli.
14. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Solapur.
15. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Thane.
16. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Dhule.
17. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
18. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
19. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::
3
20. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
21. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Usmanabad.
22. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
23. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Hingoli.
24. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
25. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli.
26. Gajanan Ramdas Chandane,
aged 23 years, r/o Nandgaon (Kh.)
Tq. Nandgaon (Kh.), Dist. Amravati.
27. Bhimrao Rajprasad Khade, age 30 years,
r/o Ramtirth, Tq. Daryapur, Dist. Amravati.
28. Varsha Krushnarao Kurhekar, aged 23 years,
r/o Bhovte Layout, Behind Banoda School,
Prabhu Colony, Amravati, Tq. Dist. Amravati.
29. Veterinary Practitioners Association Maharashtra,
Registration No.PN 1945, under Indian Trade
Union's Act, 1926, office at Central Building Compound,
Pune 411 001.
Through Dr. Prithviraj Natthu Dongare,
Joint Secretary, r/o Tulsikunj, 15 Thakare
Layout, Dabha Post Dabha, Tq. Dist.Nagpur-23.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::
4
30. Sanjan s/o Anandrao Chute,
aged 30 years, Occ. Educated Unemployed,
r/o Kamthi, Post Kasarkheda, Tq. Dist. Wardha.
31. Anil s/o Jagannathji Hadke,
aged 31 years, Occ. Educated Unemployed,
r/o Kamthi, Post Kasarkheda, Tq. Dist. Wardha.
32. Arvind s/o Anandrao Bante,
Occ. Educated Unemployed, r/o Bhojapur,
Post Bela, Tq. Dist. Bhandara- 441 904. ....RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4566/2007
1.
Dr. Laeeque Ahmad Khan, aged 25 years,
Occ. Unemployed, r/o 72, Manohar Vihar Colony,
Hazari Pahad, Nagpur-7.
2. Dr. Miss Bharti Manohar Raut, aged 26 years,
Occ.Unemployed, r/o Behind KDK College,
Block "D", Flat No. 208, NIT Complex, Nagpur.
3. Dr. Sopan Gautamrao Jagtap, aged 27 years,
Occ. Unemployed, r/o At Post Bhendisubrak,
Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.
4. Dr. Pravin R. Wankhade, aged 24 years, Unemployed,
r/o At post Jarud,Tq.Warud, Dist. Amravati.
5. Dr. Vivek N. Khandait, Occ. Unemployed,
aged 24 years, r/o at post Palandur (Ch),
Tq. Lakhni, Dist. Bhandara.
6. Dr. Dhananjay S. Rekhe,
Occ. Unemployed, aged 24 years,
r/o Moreshwar Colony, Akola.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::
5
7. Dr. Vaijeenath Sarjerao Gaware,
Occ. Unemployed, aged 27 years,
r/o c/o Dr.Survase, Hari Om,
Bhagya Nagar, Jalna. .....PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.
2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development
Department, Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3.
Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fishery Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.
4. Maharashtra State Veterinary Council,
through its Registrar, Near Udyog Bhavan,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd.,
through its Director, ICC Tower, 5th Floor,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Pune.
6. Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences
University through its Registrar,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur.
7. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nagpur.
8. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Wardha.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::
6
9. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
10. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara.
11. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gondia.
12. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur.
13. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Pune.
14. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nashik.
15. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Sangli.
16. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Solapur.
17. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Thane.
18. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Dhule.
19. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon.
20. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::
7
21. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Jalna.
22. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Latur.
23. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Usmanabad.
24. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded.
25. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Amravati.
26. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Hingoli.
27. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli. ....RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner in W. P. No. 2360/2007.
Mrs. B. H. Dangre, Addl. Government Pleader with
Mr. K. V. Deshmukh, for respondent nos.1 to 3.
Mrs. Bodade, Advocate for respondent no.10.
Mr. A. R. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.6.
Mr. H. A. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.25.
Mrs. M. P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 8,9 and 11.
Mr. R.N.Ghuge,Advocate for respondent nos. 11,16,17,21,18,19 & 23.
Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent nos. 29 to 32.
Mrs. T. D. Khade, Advocate for respondent no.12.
Mrs. A. R. Taiwade, Advocate for respondent nos. 5 and 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- S. A. BOBDE & P. D. KODE, JJ.
th
DATE :-
13 December
, 2010
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::
8
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per:- S. A. Bobde, J.)
1. The petitioner-Maharashtra State Veterinary Council, Nagpur has challenged appointments of Live Stock Supervisors made by respondents-Zilla Parishads in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents; as also the advertisements. The petitioners have further prayed for setting aside all the appointments of Unregistered Veterinary Practitioners as Live Stock Supervisors made by the respondents-Zilla Parishads.
2. The petitioner-Maharashtra State Veterinary Council, is established under Section 32 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (For short "the Act"). The respondents, against whom reliefs are claimed, are the Chief Executive Officers of the concerned Zilla Parishads, who have issued advertisements and made appointments of the candidates to the post of Live Stock Supervisors (Class-III) in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-10000. The main contention raised by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that after the coming into force of the Act, adopted by both the Houses of Maharashtra ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 9 Legislative Assembly by resolution dated 29.03.1997, it was not permissible for a local authority such as Zilla Parishad to recruit candidates on the posts of Live Stock Supervisors from amongst the diploma holders, who are not entitled to be registered under the Act and, therefore, cannot be appointed to hold any office by means of Section 30 of the Act.
Section 15 of the Act provides the scheme in regard to qualification for registration, on which the main challenge is based.
Section 15 of the Act reads as follows:-
"15. Recognition of veterinary qualifications granted by veterinary institutions in India.- (1) The veterinary qualifications granted by any veterinary institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be recognised veterinary qualifications for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Any veterinary institution in India, which grants a veterinary qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the Central Government to have such qualification recognised and the Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification in the Official Gazette amend the First Schedule so as to include such qualification therein and any such notification may also ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 10 direct that an entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against such veterinary qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised veterinary qualification only when granted after a specific date."
Admittedly, none of the recognised veterinary qualifications, prescribed in the First Schedule, is a Diploma from any University. Section 23 of the Act prescribes the maintenance of a veterinary practitioners register. It specifically provides that the register shall contain names of all persons, who possess the recognised veterinary qualifications. Section 24 to 28 deal with the registration of Indian Veterinary Practitioners, issue of certificate of registration and registration of additional qualification and removal of names from Indian Veterinary Practitioners Register and matters connected therewith. Section 30 of the Act confers a right on registered veterinary practitioner to practise as Veterinary Practitioner and to recover charges in respect of expenses and medicines etc. to which he may be entitled. Section 30 of the Act, which confers rights on registered practitioners, reads as follows:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 11"30. Right of persons who are enrolled on the Indian veterinary practitioners register.- No person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, shall-
(a) hold office as veterinary physician or surgeon or any other like office (by whatever name called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority;
(b) practise veterinary medicine in any State:
Provided that the State Government may, by order, permit a person holding a diploma or certificate of veterinary supervisor, stockman or stock assistant (by whatever name called) issued by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry (by whatever name called) of any State or any veterinary institution in India, to render under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, minor veterinary services.
Explanation.- "Minor veterinary services" means the rendering of preliminary veterinary aid, like vaccination, castration, and dressing or wounds, and such other types of preliminary aid or the treatment of such ailments as the State Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;
(c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a veterinary health certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 12 signed or authenticated by duly qualified veterinary practitioner;
(d) be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or any matter relating to veterinary medicine."
As is apparent from Section 30 of the Act, it confers the following rights on a registered veterinary practitioner:-
(a) to hold office of veterinary physician or surgeon.
(b) to hold a like office and
(c) to practice veterinary medicine in any State.
These rights are conferred only on registered veterinary practitioners, which means on persons holding recognised veterinary qualifications, which alone permits registration. According to the Act, only degree holders are entitled to be registered as veterinary practitioner vide Section 15 and the First Schedule. By the proviso to Section 30, the State Government is empowered to permit non degree holders, such as persons holding diploma or a certificate of veterinary supervisor, stockman or stock assistant etc. to render minor veterinary ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 13 services, however, under the supervision or direction of a registered veterinary practitioner. The explanation to this Section defines "minor veterinary services". This is the fourth kind of right, which is conferred or reserved by the Act on persons having lesser qualifications like a diploma. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents-Zilla Parishads could not have issued any advertisements for the recruitment and, thereafter, actually recruit the persons in the posts of Live Stock Supervisors since there is an absolute bar on the recruitment of diploma holders. Further, according to the petitioner, these supervisors have been appointed for working independently on dispensary Grade-II, which is impermissible since the said persons can only render minor veterinary services under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner.
3. A close scrutiny of Section 30 of the Act, however, does not make it possible to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner. Section 30 of the Act, in its true intent and purport and in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 14 plain terms, permits a registered veterinary practitioner to hold Office as Veterinary Physician and Surgeon and practise veterinary medicine in any State. In terms, the Section does not bar those, who are not registered and also cannot be registered, from providing minor veterinary services. There is also no doubt that, in the present case, respondent-State of Maharashtra had issued such an order on 27.08.2009. It was, however, contended by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that Section 30 of the Act totally prohibits a veterinary practitioner, who cannot be registered, such as diploma holder, from rendering veterinary services and, therefore, from holding the office of Veterinary Surgeon or Physician. It is not possible to accept this submission since Section 30 of the Act debars a person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, only from holding the office of the Veterinary Surgeon and Physician on a core office and from practicing the veterinary medicine in any State. It does not bar the said person from holding any office other than that of the Veterinary Physician and Surgeon. Indeed, there is no dispute that a Live Stock Supervisor does not perform the work of the Veterinary ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 15 Physician or Surgeon and merely performs minor veterinary services as specified in explanation to Section 30 of the Act. The respondent-
State has submitted a list of duties, which a Live Stock Supervisor is required to perform. A plain reading of that list at page no. 426 of the petition indicates not a single duty which appertains to the office of the Veterinary Practitioner or Surgeon but only duties referable to minor veterinary duties specified in the explanation. It was, however, contended by Mr.Patil, that the Supreme Court in Udai Singh Dagar & Ors. ..vs.. Union of India & ors. 2007 (7) SCALE 278, has held that persons, not holding a degree in Veterinary Sciences, cannot be employed or practice veterinary science in the State. On going through the judgment, we find that the Supreme Court has held that after coming into force of the Act, non-graduate veterinary practitioners, who are registered under the old Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, are not eligible to practice veterinary medicines on the same condition and in the same manner as they were doing prior to the coming into force of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and that the said non graduate practitioners are not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 16 entitled to be registered as veterinary practitioners. The Supreme Court did not consider and indeed was not called upon to, consider the question; whether such non graduate veterinary practitioners can be appointed to render minor veterinary services under supervision and direction of the registered veterinary practitioner as contemplated by the proviso and explanation to Section 30 of the Act. Indeed, while considering the fate of the persons, who have been employed to perform minor veterinary services, the Supreme Court, in para 60, observed as follows:-
"60. Veterinary services in terms of the Central Act is in two parts (1) veterinary services and (2) minor veterinary services. What would be the minor veterinary services has been laid down by reason of a notification issued by the respective State Government in exercise of their power under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Once such a notification has been issued, indisputably, those who are not otherwise entitled to resort to veterinary practices within the meaning of the Central Act can be asked to perform the jobs of minor veterinary services."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 17
In the operative part of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that the persons employed for performing the minor veterinary services would have a right to continue in service subject, of course, to carrying out their duties strictly in terms of the Notification issued by the State. In paragraph 81 of the judgment in Udai Singh Dagar & Ors.,(supra) the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"81. Despite our aforementioned findings, we are of the opinion that those who are in service of the State or the semi-government or local self government organizations must be held to have a right to continue in service. The employees of the State Enjoy a status. A person who enjoys a status can be deprived therefrom only in accordance with law having regard to the nature of right conferred on him under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The law in this behalf, in our opinion, is clear. Their nature of duty may change but they would be otherwise entitled to continue in service. The State of Maharashtra or for that matter even the other States have issued notification (s) in terms of clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Minor veterinary services, therefore, having been specified in terms of the said notification, those certificate holders who are in the services ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 18 of the State or the other semi-government organizations are entitled to continue in service, subject of course to, carryout out their duties strictly in terms of the notification issued by the State under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. In the event, any State has not issued such a notification, they may do so."
4. It was, however, urged by Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Supreme Court only permitted the said non graduate persons to perform minor veterinary services if they were already in service and did not sanction fresh recruitment of the non graduate practitioners. We see no merit in this submission. The Supreme Court has interpreted the entire scheme of the Act with reference to the rights of non graduate veterinary practitioners to hold the office and practice veterinary medicines and while holding that they have no such right, has permitted only those already in service to continue. The Supreme Court has not placed any limitation on the fresh recruitment of such persons while permitting those already in the employment to continue. As we have observed that, in the Udai ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 19 Singh Dagar & Ors., (supra) the question did not fall for consideration before the Supreme Court. Indeed, Parliament has specifically permitted such unregistered practitioners to hold office and perform minor veterinary services, with a view to prevent the unemployment of large number of such persons who obtained such qualification for earning and living. The proviso indicates recognition of the existence of such persons and their value in the practise of veterinary sciences.
5. This take us to the next submission on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents have employed Live Stock Supervisors to carry out functions and posted them in such dispensaries and Veterinary Health Centres etc. where they do not have to render their minor veterinary services under the supervision and direction of the registered veterinary practitioner.
6. This contention is strongly refuted on behalf of the State by Mrs. Dangre, the learned Addl. Government Pleader, who states ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 20 that it is not so. In any case, this is a matter, which can be rectified through administrative means. It is not possible for us to give any specific finding regarding individual posts. We, however, make it clear that the Supreme Court has already observed in paragraph 81 of the judgment in Udai Singh Dagar & Ors., (supra) that such persons will be entitled to serve subject, of course, to carrying out their duties in terms of the notification issued by the State under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Act.
7. Interestingly, it was submitted on behalf of the State that a person employed at Taluka level for doing the minor veterinary services, may be said to be working under the supervision of a registered veterinary practitioner, who is posted in another town at the District place. This situation is clearly unacceptable in terms of the law. The proviso permits non graduate practitioners to render minor veterinary services "under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner". What is contemplated is that the said person must work under the vigil of and, as it were, under the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 21 guiding eyes of the registered veterinary practitioner. The said posting would necessarily have to be in such a way that the registered veterinary practitioner can directly oversee the work of the non graduate. We derive support from the observations of the Supreme Court in C.E.S.C. Limited and ors. ..vs.. Subhash Cahndra Bose and ors.; (1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 441 , where in paragraph 36, the Supreme Court observed as under:-
"36. Let me, therefore, consider the ambit of the word 'supervisor' under Section 2 (9) (ii) of the Act. In Webster Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) the word 'supervision' has been defined at page 1260 in Vol. II as "authority to direct or supervise", supervise means-have a "general oversight of ". In Corpus Juris Secundum, (Vol. 83 at page 900) it is stated that "The word 'supervision' is not of precise import and when not limited by the context is broad enough to cover more than one subject. It implies oversight and direction, and does not necessarily exclude the doing of all manual labour, but may properly include the taking of an active part in the work." "Supervision" is defined as meaning "the act of overseeing or supervising; having general oversight of, especially as an officer vested with authority; inspection; oversight; superintendence."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 22
Words and Phrases, (Permanent Education, Vol. 40-A) defines that the "supervision" means oversight, an act or occupation of supervising; inspection. "Supervision" is an act of overseeing or supervision; having general oversight of, especially as an officer vested with authority; inspection;
oversight; superintendence. "Control" is the act of superintending; care and foresight for purpose of directing and with authority to direct; power or authority to check or restrain; restraining or directing influence; regulating power. Contract of employment to "supervise" construction of power plan, steam distribution system held to require time and attention to work needed to see that it was properly and promptly done, regardless of number of hours spent thereon. The word "supervision" is not one of precise import and is broad enough to require either supervisor's constant presence during work supervised or his devotion thereon of only time necessary to see that it complies with contract specifications, advise as to details, prepare necessary sketches and drawing, etc. In Owen v. Evans & Owen (Builders) Ltd. the Court of Appeal was called upon to consider the meaning of the words "immediate supervision' under Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948. Whether the presence of the supervisor is necessary at all times? It was held no. Ormerod, L.J. Held that in each ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 23 case the question must be decided how much supervision is required in the circumstance of the case being considered? If every move was fraught with danger, then clearly supervision of the most constant kind would be demanded, and the supervisor must be there all the time. On the other hand, there may be certain pars of the work, if not the whole of it, which do not give rise to any foreseeable danger, and in those circumstances it may well be that the intention of the regulation is that supervision need not be so strict.
Upjohn, L.J. As he then was, while agreeing held that the real question is whether there was a supervision for the purposes of the regulation and was that a proper or adequate supervision? The regulations are formulated for the protection of the workman, but, at the same time, they must be given a practical effect. The degree of supervision must entirely depend upon the task, and it cannot mean that there must always be a constant supervision throughout. There may be times during a demolition falling within Regulation 79 (5) where a particular operation is a dangerous one. That cannot always be avoided, and it may be that the danger is such that the supervisor must give a constant supervision during that time. But there will be other times where the particular operation is a simple one, involving no danger to a building labourer. Then the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 24 supervisor may properly go away and perform other tasks.
He may answer the telephone or supervise other groups. All depends on the facts of each case.
8. The last contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the advertisement is contrary to the Rules. Paragraph 3 of the advertisement reads as follows :-
"3. S.S.C. Pass and should have passed Live Stock Supervisor training course conducted either by Director or by any recognized agriculture University or should have passed two years diploma course of Dairy Technology examination conducted by M.S. Technical Examination Board."
According to Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no training course conducted by the Director of Veterinary Sciences or two years' Diploma course of Veterinary Sciences conducted by the Maharashtra State Technical Examination Board, since these courses had been discontinued and the respondents, therefore, have no candidates available, who fulfill such qualification. According to the learned counsel, the respondents have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 25 employed persons, who have obtained their diploma or certificates from the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University.
9. We have heard Mr. A. R. Patil, the learned counsel for the Maharashtra Animal and Fishery Sciences University, Nagpur, who has submitted before us that though the said courses were discontinued, there is a provision for qualification obtained "from any recognised Agriculture University" and that this University is formed as a result of bifurcation of the Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, which is, admittedly, an Agriculture University. Hence, We find no merit in the last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner also.
10. In this view of the matter, we hold that the respondents are entitled to recruit non graduate practitioners of veterinary science for rendering minor veterinary services only as contemplated by Notification issued under Section 30 (b) of the Act on the posts such as Live Stock Supervisors. We further hold that the non graduate ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 ::: 26 practitioners of veterinary science will not be entitled to hold any post of Veterinary Physician or Surgeon in the Government or any institution maintained by the local authority or practise veterinary medicines in the State of Maharashtra. We, further direct that the respondents-State of Maharashtra and the Chief Executive Officers of the Zilla Parishads, shall ensure that no non graduate veterinary practitioner employed by them shall be allowed to hold any post of Veterinary Physician or Surgeon or be allowed to function, except under the supervision and direction of a registered veterinary practitioner.
We must make it clear that we are not deciding the case of any particular appointment made by the respondents and none of those, who are said to have been selected in pursuance of the advertisement, are parties before us.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:41:34 :::