Dismissed

Chaturbhuj Sharma v. State

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2017CW/4100/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions regarding the Raj.Prasadesh Vaidya Samitti and other medical practitioners. Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajasthan Pradesh Vidya Samiti (2010) 12 SCC 609, the court held that the matter was squarely covered by the precedent, leaving nothing to decide in the writ petitions. The interim order was vacated.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order is vacated. The respondents are free to take appropriate steps against the petitioners.

Chaturbhuj Sharma Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1542 / 1997

¶3

Raj.Pradesh Vaidya Samitti
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4684 / 1995
Munnaram Soni
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 183 / 1997
Raj.Pradesh Ayu.Nizi Chikitsak Samiti
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent

¶4

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 563 / 1997 Satya Narain Kumawat

(2 of 6)

[CW-1542/1997]

Versus

State & Ors.

----Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1459 / 1997
Yogesh Kumar Shrarma
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors.
----Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1626 / 1997
Pravesh Chand Vijay
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1645 / 1997
Harphool Singh Saini

----Petitioner

Versus

(3 of 6)

[CW-1542/1997]

State

----Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3003 / 1997
Prem Lal Gandhi
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4100 / 1997
Chaturbhuj Sharma
----Petitioner
Versus
State
----Respondent
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4361 / 1999
Naresh Kumar Kashyap
----Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors
----Respondent

¶16

(4 of 6)

¶17

[CW-1542/1997]

¶18

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6618 / 1999 Banwari Lal Mangal ----Petitioner Versus State & Ors ----Respondent S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2371 / 2000 Bhagwan Das Bothra ----Petitioner Versus Board Of Indian Medcine ----Respondent S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1218 / 2002 Dwarka Prasad Sharma ----Petitioner Versus Board Of Indian Medicine Rajas ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Namita Parihar on behalf of Mr.R.C. Joshi, Mr. V.K. Tamolia on behalf of Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. counsel. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.N. Sharma

¶19

(5 of 6)

¶20

[CW-1542/1997]

¶21

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶22

Order

¶23

16/01/2017

¶24

The controversy involved in the present bunch of writ petition is squarely covered by judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, rendered in case Rajasthan Pradesh Vidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Another Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 609. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶25

“51. At the cost of repetition, it may be pertinent to mention here that in view of the above, we have reached to the following inescapable conclusions :-

¶26

(I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a University/Deemed University nor an Educational Board.

¶27

(II) It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. (III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as the Ayurveda or any other branch of medical field.

¶28

(IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any University/Board.

¶29

(V) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan has got no recognition from the Statutory Authority after 1967. No attempt had ever been made by the Society to get recognition as required under Section 14 of the 1970 Act and further did not seek modification of entry No. 105 in Schedule II Schedule to the 1970 Act.

¶30

(VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic

¶31

(6 of 6)

¶32

[CW-1542/1997]

¶33

education or has attended classes in Ayurveda in any recognized college.

¶34

(VII) After commencement of Act, 1970, a person not

¶35

possessing the qualification prescribed in Schedules II, III & IV to the 1970 Act is not entitled to practice.

¶36

(VIII) Mere inclusion of name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough making him eligible to practice.

¶37

(IX) The right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute and thus subject to reasonable restrictions as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

¶38

(X) Restriction on practice without possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in Schedule II, III & IV to the 1970 Act is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act.”

¶39

In view of the judgment cited above, nothing survives in these writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly. The interim order of this court stands vacated and respondents are free to take appropriate steps and action against the petitioner, in light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶40

A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.

¶41

MohitR2-14

Chaturbhuj Sharma v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaturbhuj Sharma v. State

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

Om Prakash Kajla Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Mohit Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Aalam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rakesh Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Harsh Pratap Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Prakash Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp