Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Sanjay Agrawal, JJ.
Indian Medical Association, Chhattisgarh State Branch - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 930 of 2001 With Writ Petition (S) No. 2849 of 2013 With Writ Petition (PIL) No. 32 of 2012
Decided On : 04-02-2020
Shri Sudeep Johri, Shri Ishhadil Ali, Shri Pranjal Shukla and Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocates, for the Appellant; Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Deputy Advocate General. Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate. Shri Krishna Gopal Yadaw, Standing counsel on behalf of Shr B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General. Shri Pankaj Singh and Shri Sunny Agrawal, Advocates. Shri K. Rohan and Shri Sumit Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conflict between the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the need for a policy decision to regulate the role and supervision of Rural Medical Assistants.
Headnote:
Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act - Medical Education - 2001 Act, Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 and subsequent amendments, and its conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The court also considered the legislative competence of the State and the authority of the Indian Medical Council in regulating medical education. The court highlighted the definitions of 'medicine' and 'alternative medicine' under the 2001 Act and its implications on the practice of allopathy. The court emphasized the need for a policy decision to regulate the role and supervision of Rural Medical Assistants, ultimately leading to the cancellation of their designation as 'Assistant Medical Officers'.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 and subsequent amendments. The petitions raised concerns about the State's legislative competence, violation of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the appointment of ill-qualified persons as Rural Medical Assistants to treat patients in allopathy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 and subsequent amendments were in conflict with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. However, the court noted that the role and supervision of Rural Medical Assistants were regulated through a policy decision, leading to the cancellation of their designation as 'Assistant Medical Officers'.
Issues: The main issues included the legislative competence of the State, violation of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the appointment of ill-qualified persons as Rural Medical Assistants to treat patients in allopathy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the conflict between the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the need for a policy decision to regulate the role and supervision of Rural Medical Assistants.
Final Decision: The court disposed of all three writ petitions, noting that the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 and subsequent amendments were no longer relevant due to the cancellation of the designation of Rural Medical Assistants as 'Assistant Medical Officers'. The court granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue separate remedies for their grievances.
JUDGMENT
P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ. - The grievance projected in the above three writ petitions is mainly connected to an enactment made by the State by way of Act No.7, i.e. , of the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Mandal Act, 2001 (for short, ''the 2001 Act'') providing for commencement of a course in the medical field, conferring a degree on successful completion of 3 years and facilitate the placement as Medical Practitioner, virtually in place of Regular Doctors; despite the fact that, the field of medical education is covered by Entry No. 66 of the ''List-I'' of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which comes within the exclusive domain of the Union Government.
2. The first among of the three writ petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 930 of 2001 has been filed by the Indian Medical Association - an Association of Medical Practitioners (Doctors) and some members of the Association, challenging the constitutional validity of the 2001 Act and the subsequent amendments, on various grounds. The main ground/challenge raised against the statute is that the State has no legislative competence. A declaration is also sought for, to the effect that the impugned Act is void, for being repugnant to the Union Legislation, namely, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, ''Act of 1956'') by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India . The Petitioners also seek to quash the impugned Act for being violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 32 of 2012 has been filed by a team of Allopathic Doctors and their Association. The challenge is against Annexure P/1 order dated 21.03.2012 therein, whereby the State had decided to convert 741 seats of ''Medical Officers'' into ''Rural Medical Assistant'' and to appoint ill-qualified persons to treat patients in allopathy. The main grounds of challenge are mostly similar to the grounds raised in Writ Petition No. 930 of 2012, referring to the legislative incompetence of the State to have enacted the 2001 Act and in turn, against the conversion of the posts, which otherwise could have been filled up only by appointing the qualified persons like the Petitioners therein.
4. Writ Petition (S) No. 2849 of 2013 is filed by an Association of Nurses and other Para Medical Staff, joining hands with two of their members. The challenge is against the Annexure P/1 Rules dated 09.07.2013, providing for regularization of the recruitment of the Rural Medical Assistants as per Chhattisgarh Rural Medical Assistant Class-III (non-gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 (for short, ''Rules of 2013''). The grievance is that there is already a set of Rules (Annexure P/10 dated 06.07.2013) dealing with the all concerned in the ClassIII non-gazetted cadre and as such, framing of another set of rules as per Annexure P/1, to cater to the needs of ill-qualified ''Rural Medical Assistants'' to act as Doctors and in bringing them over and above the slots of the Petitioners is had, contending that it is not liable to be justified.
5. The grounds of challenge against the rules are virtually similar to those raised in the other two writ petitions, referring to the legislative incompetence of the State to have enacted the 2001 Act and the amendments thereunder which provide for starting of the course stated as passed by the ''Rural Medical Assistants''. It is contended that they have been identified to treat the patients virtually without proper qualification and contrary to the rules, regulations and norms issued by the Indian Medical Council, who alone is the competent body to prescribe the syllabus and approve course in the medical field. For quite long, the above three matters were being posted together. Pleadings have been completed by the parties, by filing returns, rejoinders, additional statements, petition for amendments etc.
6. Reference to the prayers (as amended) raised in Writ Petition No. 930 of 2012 would be appropriate, as given below:
''7.1 The
