Madras High Court
T.Rajakumari vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 August, 2021
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6762 of 2021
T.Rajakumari ... Appellant / Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 2.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai. ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order, dated 06.07.2021 made in W.P(MD)No.14969 of
2018 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Standing Counsel for Government
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/6
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.DURAISWAMY,J.)
Challenging the order, dated 06.07.2021 passed in
W.P(MD)No.14969 of 2018, the writ petitioner has filed the above
Writ Appeal.
2.The appellant filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order
passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated
12.06.2018 and to quash the same insofar as the instructions
relating to conducting of practical examination and issuance of
certificates to the candidates who have allegedly completed six
months of USG Training.
3.The appellant challenged the Notification issued by the
second respondent through the proceedings dated 12.06.2018.
4.The case of the appellant is that the Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
1994, was brought into force with the primary object to prevent sex
selection before or after conception. The Rules were also framed in
the year 1996. The Act specifically provides under Section 2(P) that
a sonologist or the imaging speciality means a person who
possesses any one of the medical qualification recognized under the
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 or who possesses a Post Graduate
qualification in ultra-sonography or imaging techniques or radiology.
The Rules also provides for a six months training in the manner
prescribed under the Rules to qualify under Section 2(P) and
according to the appellant, this was running counter to the main
provision in the Act. Rule 3(3)(1)(b) of the Rules became a subject
matter of the challenge before the Delhi High Court and by order,
dated 17.02.2016, the Delhi High Court struck down the Rules as
ultra vires. The order passed by the Delhi High Court was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
SLP(C)Nos.16657-16659 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
by order, dated 14.03.2018, stayed the operation of the order of the
Delhi High Court, dated 17.02.2016.
5.Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the SLP is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
6.Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
the second respondent issued a Notification, dated 12.06.2018 to
issue certificate to the candidates, who have completed six months
of Ultra Sonography Training. Challenging the said Notification, the
petitioner has filed the Writ Petition.
7.The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the case
of both parties, dismissed the Writ Petition finding that the appellant
should await the final orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which
will decide the fate of the relevant Rules.
8.When the issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and that the Apex Court has also granted an interim stay of
the order passed by the Delhi High Court which struck down the
Rule as ultra vires, the Notification issued by the second respondent
is proper. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant should await the final orders in the SLPs pending before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention of the appellant that the
Notification issued by the second respondent is liable to be set aside
on the ground that the Delhi High Court has struck down the Rules,
by its order, dated 17.02.2016 cannot be sustained for the reason
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
that the said order has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the order of stay is in force as of today.
10.In such view of the matter, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The
Writ Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[M.D.,J] [K.M.S.,J.]
18.08.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock
down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall
be the responsibility of the
advocate / litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
M.DURAISWAMY,J.
and
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
ps
To
1.The Secretary,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 2.
2.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai.
W.A(MD)No.1590 of 2021
18.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
