Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1207 (ALL)

RAVI PRAKASH DWIVEDI v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-04-15

KASHI NATH PANDEY, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare for the petitioner. Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel appears for U.P. Public Service Commission - respondent No. 4. Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned standing counsel appears for State-respondents. 2. The petitioner’s application for selection as Veterinary Medical Officer in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.9.2007 was rejected by the U.P. Public Service Commission on the ground that in terms of Rule 8 (2) of the U.P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules, 1998 and the advertisement, the petitioner is not registered as Veterinary Surgeon in the State of U.P. under Section 23 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1984 Act’). 3. It is not denied that the petitioner holds requisite qualification i.e. Bachelor Degree in Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry (B.V.Sc & A.H) from Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar, and was registered with Veterinary Council of U.P. vide Registration No. U.P.V.C. 3933 dated 23.1.2004. He got selected as Veterinary Medical Officer in the State of Jharkhand on which he got his registration certificate transferred from U.P. to the State of Jharkhand under Section 52 of the 1994 Act. The petitioner has submitted the certificates of his registration, in proof thereof with the application form to the U.P. Public Service Commission. 4. In the counter-affidavit of Sri A.K. Singh, Veterinary Officer, Laxmanpur, Pratapgarh filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, it is stated in paragraph No. 5 that registration in other State cannot be done till ‘no objection certificate’ is issued from the previous State in which the candidate was registered as per Rule 52 of Veterinary Council of India. In paragraph No. 6 it is stated that registration can be done only in one State Veterinary Council. The U.P. Veterinary Council has issued ‘no objection certificate’ to the petitioner for getting him registered with the Jharkhand Veterinary Council. His registration was automatically cancelled from U.P. Veterinary Council after issuance of ‘no objection certificate from U.P. Veterinary Council. Thus he was not registered with the U.P. Veterinary Council after getting ‘no objection certificate’ issued on 9.7.2007. 5. The petitioner has filed an amendment application challenging Rule 8 (2) of the U.P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules, 1998 as ultra vires and inoperative. 6. Thus he was not registered with the U.P. Veterinary Council after getting ‘no objection certificate’ issued on 9.7.2007. 5. The petitioner has filed an amendment application challenging Rule 8 (2) of the U.P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules, 1998 as ultra vires and inoperative. 6. After hearing the counsels for the parties, we find that the objections taken by the U.P. Public Service Commission are wholly illegal, irrational and superfluous. 7. The petitioner was registered with the U.P. Veterinary Council and consequently he was also registered with Veterinary Council of India, vide Registration No. V.C.I/002728 dated 15.1.2007. The Veterinary Council of India certified that the petitioner was duly registered under the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, with date and place of his registration with the State Veterinary Council shown as UPVC/3933 dated 23.1.2004 with the Veterinary Council of U.P. 8. The State Veterinary Councils are established under Section 32 of the Act of 1984. Under Section 44 of the Act, the State Government provides a register of veterinary practitioners known as the State Veterinary Register of the State. The qualifications are to be entered in the register, after scrutiny of application for registration under Section 47. Section 52 of the 1984 Act provides transfer of registration where a registered veterinary practitioner of one State is practising veterinary medicine in another State, on payment of prescribed fee. 9. It is not denied that the petitioner was not only qualified, but was registered in the State of U.P. After his selection as Veterinary Medical Officer in the State of Jharkhand, his registration was transferred in accordance with provisions of the Act. He was therefore entitled to be treated as a duly qualified and registered Veterinary Practitioner. He was not required to get his name registered in the State of U.P., again only for applying for the post in the State of U.P. His registration in any State entitled him to be registered in the Veterinary Council of India, under Section 24 of the Act. 10. The object and purpose of requiring a person to have a registration before he applies for appointment as Veterinary Officer is to verify that the person is qualified, fulfils all the terms and conditions of valid practitioner under the Act and may be subjected to disciplinary proceedings if the occasion so arises. 11. 10. The object and purpose of requiring a person to have a registration before he applies for appointment as Veterinary Officer is to verify that the person is qualified, fulfils all the terms and conditions of valid practitioner under the Act and may be subjected to disciplinary proceedings if the occasion so arises. 11. The petitioner has challenged Rule 8 (2) of the U.P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules, 1998 requiring a person should be registered with Veterinary Council of U.P. for the appointment. We do not find that the rule to be illegal, irrational or arbitrary. It only needs to be correctly interpreted. A narrow or pedantic interpretation would defeat the purpose of enacting the rule. 12. We do not find substance in the objections of the respondents that the petitioner was not registered under the Rules to be considered for selection as Veterinary Medical Officer. The petitioner’s registration in U.P. and its transfer after issuing ‘no objection certificate’ did not render him unregistered Veterinary Practitioner. He continued to be a registered Veterinary Practitioner with his registration in the State of Jharkhand. He can get a transfer of his certificate to the U.P., if he was selected. 13. The writ petition is allowed. The letter of the U.P. Public Service Commission rejecting the petitioner’s candidature for want of registration with U.P. Veterinary Council, as a precondition for consideration for the post of Veterinary Medical Officer, is set aside. We direct the Commission to declare the petitioner’s result, and if he is selected and recommended, to the State Government, to give him appointment in accordance with law very expeditiously, and if possible within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Commission and the concerned authority. ————