JUDGMENT 1. - This is a review petition seeking review of our order dated September 23, 1988, made in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1767/86, Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and another and three companion petitions. Under our aforesaid order we have taken a view that such of the persons who acquire qualification of either Vaidva Visharad or Aurveda Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, are not entitled to be registered in the State Register and are not entitled to practice in Indian System of Medicine as Vaidya. We are of the opinion that while making the aforesaid order the various clauses of sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (for short the Act) escaped our notice. In the aforesaid order, we will consider the provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act. Under sub-section (2) of section 17 of the Act no person other than a practitioner of Indian medicine who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine:- (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or Physician or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority ; (b) shall practise Indian medicine in any State ; (c) shall be entitled to sign or authenticate a medical or fitness certificate or any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated by a duly qualified medical practitioner ; (d) shall 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, on any matter relating to Indian medicine. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act is subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of the same Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act is subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of the same Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Act provides that nothing contained in sub-section (2) shall affect, (a) the right of a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine to practice Indian medicine in any State merely on the ground that, on the commencement of this Act, he does not possess a recognised medical qualification ; (b) the privileges (including the right to practise any system of medicine) conferred by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine ; (c) the right of a person to practise Indian medicine in a State in which, on the commencement of this Act, a State Register of Indian Medicine is not maintained if, on such commencement, he has been practising Indian medicine for not less than five years ; (d) the right conferred by or under the Indian Medical-Council Act, 1956 (including the right to practise medicine as defined in clause (f) of section 2 of the said Act), on persons possessing any qualification included in the Schedules to the said Act. 2. There is no dispute between the parties that the provisions of Section 17 were extended to the State w. e. f. 1976. In earlier review petition we had already modified our order dated 23rd September, 1988, and have said that the said order will only apply to such of the persons who possess qualifications of either Vaidhya Vishared or Ayurveda Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag, after 1st of October, 1976. 3. The question is as to what is the effect of sub-sec. (3) of Section 17 of the Act. There can be no doubt that if the case is covered by any clauses of sub-sec. (3) of Section 17 of the Act. then nothing contained in sub-sec. (2) of Section 17 shall affect the case of such of the persons. 3. The question is as to what is the effect of sub-sec. (3) of Section 17 of the Act. There can be no doubt that if the case is covered by any clauses of sub-sec. (3) of Section 17 of the Act. then nothing contained in sub-sec. (2) of Section 17 shall affect the case of such of the persons. There is no dispute between the parties that the Rajasthan Indian Medicine Act, 1953 (for short the State Act) is in force and under Section 31 of the State Act the Board shall maintain in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner:- (i) register of Vaidyas, (ii) a register of Hakims, and (iii) a register of Midwives. and that register has to be divided into two parts (a) the first part containing the names of Vaidyas, Hakims, and midwives, as the case may be belonging to class A, and (b) the second part containing the names of those belonging to class B. 4. Under Section 32 (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. 5. There is no dispute that in the notification issued and moreso under Entry 22 the degrees of Vaidya Vishrad or Ayurved Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. Prayag, have been recognised for the purposes of registration under section 32 of the State Act. 6. 5. There is no dispute that in the notification issued and moreso under Entry 22 the degrees of Vaidya Vishrad or Ayurved Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan. Prayag, have been recognised for the purposes of registration under section 32 of the State Act. 6. In Part A of the Schedule to the State Act, the names of the such of the persons who have passed the final examination of the Faculty of Ayurvedic or Unani Tibbi system of medicine, surgery or midwifery held by any University established by law in India or who hold a degree of any such University in an Indian system of medicine surgery or midwifery or who have passed final examination held by a Board or Faculty of Indian Medicine, surgery or midwifery established by law in any State or (of) India other than Rajasthan or by any institution affiliated to any such Board or Faculty, and persons holding degree of Bhishagacltarya of the Government Ayurvedic College, Jaipur or the degree or Ayurvedacharya of the Ayurved Vidyapith or persons who have passed an examination from an Ayurvedic or Unani Tibbi Institution in or outside Rajasthan recognised by the Board for purpose of registration in Part A of the registers are entitled to have their names entered. Similarly such persons who have passed the examination prescribed in clauses 1 to 4 in Part B of the Schedule to the State Act are entitled to have their names entered in Part B of the Registers. As stated earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the two aforesaid degrees Vaidya Visharad or Ayurved Ratna from Hindi Sahitya Samelan, Prayag have been recognised by the Board of Indian Medicine, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the purposes of registration in Part A of the Registers or Part B of the Registers as the case may be. Therefore, in view of the various clauses contained in sub-sec. (3) of Section 17 of the Act, such persons have a right to practice. 7. Therefore, in view of the various clauses contained in sub-sec. (3) of Section 17 of the Act, such persons have a right to practice. 7. Consequently, we hereby allow the review petition and modify our order that such of the Vaidyas Hakims or Midwives who have a right to be registered tinder the State Act and whose names appear in registers maintained by the State can practice the Indian System of Medicine as Vaidyas despite the fact that the said two qualifications, and degrees do not find place after 1967 in Part II, III or IV Scheduled to the Act. Our earlier order shall be read with these modifications. *******