JUDGMENT By the Court—Heard Shri Mohd. Yusuf, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur, to entertain his application and to register him as qualified medical practitioner, after completing requisite formalities. According to the petitioner he is an experienced Hakim since 30.6.1964 and is registered with U.P. Indian Medicine Board, Lucknow. A copy of the registration certificate registering him at SI. No. 4003 dated 30.6.64, has been enclosed with the writ petition. It is contended that he was registered under Section 50 sub-section (2) of the U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939, on the basis of the experience gained by him as Hakim. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner does not possess any qualifications at all. 3. The Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, came into force on 21st December, 1970. Section 17 of the Central Act provides (1) that subject to other provisions contained in the Act any qualification included in the Second, Third or Fourth Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Indian Medicine, and no person other than practitioner of Indian medicine, save as provided in Section 28, who possessed recognized medical qualification and is enrolled in the State Register or Central Register for Indian Medicine (a) shall hold office as Vaid, Siddha, Hakim or physician or any other office in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority, and shall practice Indian medicine in any State. 4. With the enforcement of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, only those persons who hold qualifications prescribed and included under Second, Third and Fourth Schedule can be enrolled in any State Register. The emphasis in the Central Act is on qualifications, without which no one can have knowledge to practice Indian Medicine. A conspectus of the provisions of the Act, which provides for recognition of medical qualifications and Central Register of Indian Medicine, and the object and reasons of the Act demonstrate that the Parliament insisted to regulate the standard of education and the registration of only those persons who have valid qualification. The provisions of the Central Act overrides the provisions of all the legislation enacted by the State Government. The provisions of the Central Act overrides the provisions of all the legislation enacted by the State Government. Even if the U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939 is taken to be the existing law, the provisions of Central Act of 1970 override the State Act. The provisions of registration under Section 50 (2) of the State Act, thus save only those persons, who hold valid qualification in the Schedule provided under Central Act are entitled to be enrolled in the State register or Central register of Indian Medicine or practice Indian medicine in any State. Since the petitioners do not have any qualification they are not entitled to practice Indian Medicine even if they are registered in the State register maintained under U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939. The experience cannot be a substitute to a proper qualification. Unless a person holds adequate knowledge of a system of medicine any experience gained by him, is not of any benefit. A person, who has no qualifications at all cannot be allowed to practice, as he becomes a potential danger to public health. 5. A combined reading of the Indian Medicine Act, 1939, U.P. Indian Medicine Institutions (Miscellaneous and Provisions) Act, 1982 and the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 shows that only those medical practitioners who hold qualification from the Institutions detailed in the Second Schedule of the Central Act, 1970 and from the Colleges given in the Schedule under U.P. Act of 1939, and U.P. Act, 1982 can be registered after 1970, with the Board of Indian Medicine U.P. and only these qualified persons are entitled to practice in Indian Medicine in the State of U.P. 6. In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand v. State of Punjab, (1998) 7 SCC 579 ; Medical Council of India v. State of Raiasthan, AIR 1996 SC 2073 ; Subhashis Bakshi and other v. West Bengal Medical Council, (2003) 9 SCC 269 , the Supreme Court has recognized the right to practice medicine of only those persons, who are qualified and are registered on the Indian Medical Register or on any State Medical Register. In Dr. Mehboob Alam v. State of U.P., (2002) Cr. LJ 1218, this Court has held that a person qualified and registered in any branch of medicine cannot practice any other branch. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.320 of 2004, Dr. In Dr. Mehboob Alam v. State of U.P., (2002) Cr. LJ 1218, this Court has held that a person qualified and registered in any branch of medicine cannot practice any other branch. A Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.320 of 2004, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Goel and others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 2004(2) ESC 976 (DB) has upheld the directions dated 28.1.2004 in contempt petition No. 820 of 2002, and has insisted upon the qualifications to practice medicine in the State. 7. The right to health included under Article 21 of Constitution of India is to be balanced with the right to practice medicine under Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (6). Only those persons who hold valid and recognized medical qualifications and are registered under the existing legislation can be allowed to practice medicine in the State. 8. The writ petition is, consequently, dismissed. Petition Dismissed. ————