Yatendra Singh Rawat vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1464 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL

               Writ Petition No. 885 of 2022 (M/S)

Yatendra Singh Rawat                                      ..... Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.                               .....Respondents

Present:
      Mr. Shashank Saun, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. K.N. Joshi, the learned Dy. Advocate General for the State/
      respondent no. 1.

                     Date of hearing : 12.05.2022

Coram:        Sri S.K. Mishra, ACJ.
              Sri R.C. Khulbe, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following judgment: (Per: Sri S.K.Mishra, ACJ.)

In this case, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith remove Dr. Jananand Nautiyal/ respondent no. 3 from the post of Chairman, Board of Indian Medical Council Uttarakhand, Dehradun and further to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for being nominated as Chairman, Board of Indian Medical Council, Uttarakhand.

2. The main basis of this writ petition is that respondent no. 3 is disqualified in view of Section 7 of the United Provinces (Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbi Systems of Medicines) Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1939). In course of hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as per the order dated 08.01.2020, Dr. Jananand Nautiyal

has been appointed as the Chairman of the Council. He drew attention of the Court to Section 7 specially sub- section (e) of the 1939 Act and contended that wife of the respondent no. 3 is working as a Managing Director in Aayush Hospital and Research Institute, Dehradun.

3. However, reading of this provision reveals that no person shall be elected or nominated as a member of the Board who is an employee of the Board or has directly or indirectly or by himself or a partner any share of the Board, unless in the latter case Government remove the disqualification.

4. Section 2 clause (i) of the 1939 Act defines Board and the Board of [Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbi Systems of Medicines] constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 provides that State Government shall by notification in the official Gazette, establish in the manner provide in sub-section (1) of section 5, a Board to be called the Board of Indian Medicine, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act. Such Board shall be a body corporate and have perpetual succession and a common seal and may be the said name sue or be sued.

5. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the disqualification as enunciated in clause (e) of Section 7 of the 1939 Act is applicable only if a person is a member or employee of the Board. A person is not ineligible simply because his relations or spouse is

Managing Director of a private medical college or school.

6. Hence, we find no merit in the writ application. The writ application, is, therefore liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed.

(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.)

PV