✦ High Court of India · 06 Aug 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 06 Aug 2025
Court
High Court of India
Decided
06 Aug 2025
Bench
Not available
Length
1,439 words

challenged Regulat ion 18 ( 5) of t he Regulat ions fram ed under Ut t arakhand Param edical Council Act , 2009 t o 1 t he ext ent it debars persons, who obt ained Param edical qualificat ion from inst it ut ions not recognized by St at e of Ut t arakhand.

3. I t is cont ended t hat t he condit ion m ent ioned in Regulat ion 18( 5) is violat ive of Art icle 14 of t he Const it ut ion; all cit izens of I ndia have equal opport unit y in m at t ers of public em ploym ent and geographical based crit eria for regist rat ion has no co- relat ion wit h t he obj ect sought t o be achieved. I t is furt her cont ended t hat residence based discrim inat ion in m at t ers of public em ploym ent is violat ive of Art icle 16 of t he Const it ut ion and such condit ion has no nexus wit h t he obj ect sought t o be achieved.

4. Ut t arakhand Param edical Council est ablished under Sect ion 3 of Ut t arakhand Param edical Council Act , 2009. The im pugned condit ion is specified in t he Regulat ions fram ed under Sect ion 45 of t he said Act .

5. Sect ion 45 ( 2) ( f ) provides t hat Regulat ions m ay lay down t he m inim um st andard of educat ion for recognizing a qualificat ion under Sect ion 20 & 21 of t he Act . Sect ion 20 ( 1) of t he Act provides t hat t he St at e Governm ent , aft er consult at ion wit h t he Council, by not ificat ion, shall recognize a degree/ diplom a awarded by a Universit y or I nst it ut ion for t he purposes of t he Act . Sect ion 20( 2) of t he Act provides t hat such Universit ies or I nst it ut ions, whose degree/ diplom a is recognized sub- sect ion ( 1) , m ay m ove represent at ion before t he St at e Governm ent , reviewing it s decision, however, t he St at e Governm ent 2 can rej ect such represent at ion for t he reasons t o be recorded. Sub- sect ion ( 3) of Sect ion 20 provides t hat t he St at e Governm ent , aft er consult at ion wit h t he Council, by not ificat ion, grant relaxat ion t o such persons in t he m at t er of educat ional qualificat ion, who were pract icing as param edical professional, before t he dat e of enforcem ent of t he Act . Sect ion 21 of t he Act provides t hat t he Council by Regulat ions m ay det erm ine t he m inim um st andards for grant of recognit ion t o Universit ies and I nst it ut ions.

6. The docum ent s enclosed wit h t he writ pet it ion reveal t hat pet it ioner passed B.Sc. ( MLT) course in Decem ber, 2016; while, t he Ut t arakhand Param edical Council Act was enforced on 20.07.2009, t herefore, pet it ioner is not prot ect ed by Sect ion 20 ( 3) of t he Act . The Universit y, which awarded B.Sc. ( MLT) degree t o pet it ioner is not recognized by Ut t arakhand Medical Council.

7. Conj oint reading of sub- sect ion ( 1) & ( 2) of Sect ion 20 revels t hat every degree / diplom a has t o be recognized by t he St at e Governm ent and if a Universit y/ I nst it ut e is left out from being recognized, t hen such Universit y / I nst it ut e can request t he St at e Governm ent t o review it s decision and for grant of recognit ion.

8. I t is not t he case of pet it ioner t hat t he Universit y, which awarded degree, invoked sub- sect ion ( 2) of Sect ion 20 of t he Act for seeking review of t he det erm inat ion m ade by t he St at e Governm ent . From t he Schem e of t he Act , revealed t hat a 3 person, who is possessed of a degree / diplom a from a Universit y / I nst it ut e, recognized by t he St at e Governm ent , alone is ent it led t o t he benefit s under t he said Act .

9. Since t he degree possessed by pet it ioner is from a unrecognized I nst it ut ion, t herefore, he does not have a vest ed right t o be regist ered wit h Ut t arakhand Medical Council. The Regulat ions are fram ed under Ut t arakhand Param edical Council Act , 2009. The Regulat ions could have been challenged if t hey were cont rary t o t he parent Act . I t is not t he case here. Therefore, challenge t hrown by pet it ioner t o Regulat ion 18 ( 5) is unsust ainable.

10. Thus, t he writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 06.08.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0 06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875 643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 4

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments