Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) practice veterinary medicine in any State:

Provided that the State Government may, by order, permit a person holding a diploma or certificate of veterinary supervisor, stock-man 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.

(2) The State Government may, after consulting the Registration Officer or the Council, as the case may be, permit the registration of any person who has been actually conducting veterinary practice in the State of Maharashtra on such conditions as may be provided for by regulations made for this purpose notwithstanding the fact that he may not be possessing qualifications entitling him to have his name entered in the register.

15. In the case of Udai Singh Dagar and others vs. Union of India and others (supra), the Apex Court, by referring the prayers made in writ petition No. 4619 of 1997 in para 69, 70 and 71 of the judgment, has made the following observations:-

"69. We are not beset with such a situation in the instant case. The right of the petitioners to practise in the field of veterinary practice has expressly been taken away. When such a right has been taken away upon laying down as essential qualification therefor which the petitioners admittedly do not possess, the right of the petitioners to continue to practice despite the fact that they do not fulfill the criteria laid down under the Parliamentary Act or the Central Act would not survive.

22. In the case of Maharashtra State Veterinary Council vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra), the petitioner- Maharashtra State Veterinary Council, Nagpur has challenged the appointment of Live Stock Supervisors made by the respondent Zilla Parishad in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Zilla Parishad. In this wp7847.11 view of the matter, this Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that the respondents are entitled to recruit the non graduate practitioners at Veterinary Science for rendering minor veterinary services only as contemplated by Notification issued under Section 30(b) of the Act on the post such as Live Stock Supervisor and that non graduate 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 local authority or practice veterinary medicine in the State of Maharashtra. It is further directed that the respondent State of Maharashtra and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad 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. In the light of notification issued under Section 30(B) of the Central Veterinary Act, the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) held that non graduate practitioners at Veterinary Science will not be entitled to hold any post of Veterinary Physician or Surgeon in the Government department or any institution. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court was not required to deal with the question whether the diploma holders, who were enrolled/registered in the State Veterinary Council Register, Part I prior to March, 1997, stood protected under Section 23(1) of the Central Veterinary Act.