Disposed

Dr.Pawan Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Secretary,Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,New Delhi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2025WRIC/8720/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to advertisement for test examination for sonologist under PC & PNDT Rules, 2014. Court observed prima facie that doctors with MBBS and postgraduate degrees may not need six months' training. Directed respondents to file counter affidavit and stayed the examination requirement for the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on examination; Counter affidavit directed within four weeks.

Dr.Pawan Kumar vs Union of India Thru… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8720 of 2025

Dr.Pawan Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union Of India Thru. Secretary,Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare,New Delhi And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Chaurasia Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Shubham Tripathi

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

¶11

1 . Heard Shri Prashant Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent(s) and Shri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and D.S.G.I. assisted by Shri Varun Pandey for the Union of India.

¶12

2 . The petitioner has challenged the advertisement issued by the respondent no.3, proposing to hold test examination for sonologist and the persons specified in the said notification in pursuance to, the mandate of 2014 Rules known as the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (Six months training) Rules, 2014, it is urged by the petitioner that members of the petitioner's association are qualified doctors and hold the degrees, issued by the Indian Medical Council and also post graduate degrees under the said examination and, therefore, they are not to require six months' training as per the PC & PNDT Rules, 2014.

¶13

3 . The attention of this Court has also drawn towards the Judgment of the Delhi High Court, wherein Section 2(p) of the PNDT Act was set to be bad in so far as it includes persons possessing postgraduate degree in ultrasonography or imaging techniques in so far as they were no such qualification recognized by MCI and the PNDT Act.

¶14

4 . My attention has also drawn by counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court had interfered with the Judgment of the High Court to the limited extent, as contained in the order dated 14th March, 2018 passed

¶15

WRIC No. 8720 of 2025

¶16

¶17

on I.A. No. 13-15 of 2017 in S.L.P.s(C) Nos. 16657-59 and reported in 2018 (5) SCC 773, in so far as it included the sonologist referred to in the definition clause.

¶18

5 . Considering the fact that primafacie in terms of the definition contained in the 2(p) of the PNDT Act, primafacie the doctors, who are holding the MBBS degree as well as Post Graduate Degree, do not need to undergo six months' training in terms of the 2014 Rules, the matter requires consideration.

¶19

6 . The respondents may file their counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. Two weeks' time thereafter shall be available to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶20

7 . List this case after six weeks.

¶21

8 . The petitioner, who is holding the MBBS degree, will not be forced to undergo the said examination by the respondent no.4 and no hindrance shall be caused to the working of the petitioner, till the next date of listing.

¶22

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

¶23

September 3, 2025

¶24

akverma

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr.Pawan Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Secretary,Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Pawan Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Secretary,Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Bahadur Singh Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager and 3 Others

Smt. Rekha Devi Vs Smt. Suryakali and 5 Others

Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Kamlesh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

M/S Jindal Restaurants Thru. Its Authorised Signatory Shri Ujjwal Gupta Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal 600/1 Thru. Presiding Officer Lko. and 5 Others

Manna Lal and Another Vs Addl. Distt. Judge Court No. 1 Unnao and 5 Others

Gyani vs Shri R.K. Choudhary