Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: veterinary practice in Maharashtra State Veterinary Council vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 December, 2010Matching Fragments
(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 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.
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 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."
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 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.