Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Veterinary ... vs Union Of India & Ors. 2007 (7) Scale ... on 13 December, 2010
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
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
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
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:-
"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
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
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
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
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
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."
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
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
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
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
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."
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
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
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
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
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
