The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of verification of medical documents and the limitations of the law in overriding the verification process.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order annex-8 dtd. 05.07.08 may kindly be quashed & the respondent no. 2 may please be directed to register the name of the petitioner is the appropriate register as per his qualification."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in accordance with the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act of 1953) as well as Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act of 1970), the petitioner is qualified in degrees of "Bhishagranta Shastri" and "Bhishagchary Shiromani". Learned counsel further submits that the college in question is recognized under the Act of 1953 and the Act of 1970. Learned counsel also submits that the Act does not require the mark-sheets and the degrees in question were partly verified by the Institute itself, and thus, the petitioner ought to be permitted to do the medical practice accordingly.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was registered with the State of West Bengal and Bihar, and thus, there is a minimum verification level, which is operating in favour of the petitioner though the mark-sheets in question were stolen from his custody and he is unable to produce the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that verification was done in a correspondence between the Institution in question and the respondents vide Annexure-3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was practising since 1992, and thus, on conjoint reading of Section 32 and Section 36 of the Act of 1953, he is entitled to practice. Section 32 and 36 of the Act of 1953, reads as under:-

"32. Persons entitled to be registered.-(1) Every person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in Part A of the Schedule shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act and on payment of the fee prescribed by Section 33, be entitled, subject to such conditions as the Board may prescribe, to have his name entered in the appropriate register as a "A" class Vaidya, Hakim or Midwife as the case may be.

(2) Every person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in Part B of the Schedule shall likewise be entitled on payment of the fee prescribed by Section 33, to have his name entered in the appropriate register as a "B" class Vaidya, Hakim, Midwife, as the case may be.

(3) Applications for registration shall be made to and disposed of by the Registrar.

(4) Any application for registration made by a person whose case is not clearly governed by the provisions of this Act or of the rules and regulations made thereunder, shall be referred to the Board for such decision, as it may deem fit in consultation with the appropriate Committee.

(5) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Registrar on any application for registration or regarding the making of any entry or alterations in a register or regarding the removal of his name therefrom, may within ninety days of such decision appeal to the Board.

(6) Such appeal shall be heard and decided in the prescribed manner.

(7) The Board may, on its own motion or on the application of any person, cancel or alter any entry in a register if in the opinion of the Board such entry was fraudulently or incorrectly, made or obtained.

36. Persons entitled to be enlisted.-(1) (a) Every practitioner, not being a registered practitioner, who proves to the satisfaction of the Registrar that he has been a in regular practice for the prescribed number of years in Rajasthan of an Indian system of medicine, surgery or midwifer