Holding

Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 is a constitutionally valid reasonable restriction under Article 19(6), and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not save a vested right for diploma holders to practice beyond the minor services permitted by state notification.

Summary

The petitioners, non‑graduate veterinary practitioners, challenged the applicability of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984, which limited practice to degree‑holders and allowed only "minor veterinary services" for diploma or certificate holders. They argued that this violated their Article 19(1)(g) right and that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 should save their pre‑existing rights. The Court held that qualifications for a profession can be prescribed by law and that Section 30 constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) in the public interest. It further held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not automatically apply because the Central Act creates a new legal situation, and no vested right survives for diploma holders to practice beyond the minor services authorized by state notifications. Consequently, the petitioners’ claim to continue full practice was rejected, though those employed in state or semi‑government services may continue in the limited minor‑service role. The writ petition and the civil appeal were dismissed.

Issues considered

The constitutionality of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 under Article 19(6).
Whether Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saves the pre‑existing rights of diploma‑holding veterinary practitioners.
Whether the repeal of earlier State Acts by the Central Act extinguishes the right to practice for non‑degree holders.
Whether the restriction on practice is a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 19(6), s. Article 311
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6

Subjects

Veterinary practiceProfessional qualificationArticle 19(6)Reasonable restrictionGeneral Clauses ActRepeal and savingRegistration of practitionersMinor veterinary servicesConstitutional law

Judgment

UDAI SINGH DAGAR AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 15, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B

Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984.

Sections 2(e), 2(j), 2(g), 3, 15, 22, 23, 30 and 67-Par/iament enacting
Act regulating veterinary practice-Central Act inter alia providing for C
establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils
and maintenance of registers of veterinary practitioners-Only registered
veterinary practitioner entitled to practice-States issuing notification under
the Central Act-Notifications and Section 30 of the Central Act challenged
by non-graduate veterinary practitioners divested of their right to practice D
under the Central Act-Held, Article 19(6) provides that qualifications can
be laid down for practicing any profession or for carrying any trade in the
interest of general public-Provisions contained in section 30 of the Central
Act constitute reasonable restriction within the meaning of the first part of
Article 19(6)-Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1953-Sections 14, 19,
24 and 25-Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act, 1971-Sections 15, E
18(1) and (2), 23, 26, 33, 37 and 38-The Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981-Regulation 3-Constitution of India,
1950-Article 19(/)(g), 19(6) and 252(1).

General Clauses Act, 1897-Section 6-Whether applicable to F
veterinary practice-Petitioners contending that rights and liabilities accrued
prior to coming into force of the Central Act saved and diploma holders on
the register maintained by the State entitled to continue practice-Held, a
right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held to be
protected provided the right survives-The right of petitioners to practice in G
the field of veterinary practice has expressly been taken away by the Central
Act-In the facts, held, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act not ipso facto
applicable-Section 67.

The State of Bombay enacted Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act,
707 fl
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 1953 for regulating matters relating to veterinary practice in the then State
of Bombay as also the requisition in the service of the State appointments for
the purpose of veterinary duties. The 1953 Act provided for maintenance of
the register of the veterinary practitioners. The State of Bombay was
bifurcated into the State of Maharashtra and the State of Gujarat. The State
of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act 1971.
B Section 15 of the 1971 Act mandates the State to cause a register to be
prepared for veterinary practitioners of the State and maintained in such form
as may be directed. The register is contain the name, address and qualification
of every person registered thereunder together with the date on which such
qualification was acquired. Section 37 of the 1971 Act provides for a rule
C making power whereas Section 38 thereof provides for regulation making
power. The State of Maharashtra in exercise of its power conferred upon it
under Sub-section (l) of Section 38 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 18
of the 1971 Act made regulations known as "The Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981."
D
The subject of veterinary practice is a State subject. The States of
Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, however, adopted
a resolution purported to be in terms of Clause (1) of Article 252 of the
Constitution oflndia requesting the Union of India to make a parliamentary
E legislation to the effect that the matter may be regulated in those States by
Parliamentary Act. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said resolution,
Parliament enacted the Indian Veterinary Council Act, (the Central Act). It
was enacted with a view to regulate veterinary practice and to provide, for
that purpose for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India State
Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of the veterinary
F practitioners and for matters connected therewith. Although the Central Act
came into force in 1984, several States did not adopt the same. On or from
1997, the Central Act was made applicable to the States ofHaryana, Bihar,
Orissa, Himachal Pradesh dnd Rajasthan and all Union Territories. The State
of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 26th August, 1997 in terms of
Section 30 of the Central Act specifying minor veterinary services to be
G rendered by the Veterinary Science Certificate or Diploma holders in the
Government Service or in Semi-Government organizations.

Appellant association representing the Veterinary Practitioners of the
State of Maharashtra filed writ petition in the High Court regarding
H applicability of Section 30 of the Central Act and inter alia seeking declaration
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. 709
that non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners are eligible to practice Veterinary A
medicine as they were practicing prior to coming into force of the Central
Act in the State of Maharashtra which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence
this appeal by the Association Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitutions of India has been filed by petitioners representing similarly
placed veterinary practitioners from several States and Union Territories of
India against the Union oflndia as also the concerned States praying inter B
alia for revoking and declaring notification issued ~y the respective State
Governments in terms of Section 30 of the Central Act as void.

-I Petitioners-appellant inter alia contended that veterinary practitioners
)>-..
possessing 'diploma in veterinary science' or 'certificate in veterinary
science' which were recognized by the State of Maharashtra and some other
c
States could not have been divested of their right to practice by reason of the
Central Act and they had a fundamental right in terms of Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution to carry on veterinary practice or continue to be in the
service of the State and any restriction placed on such rights should not only
be a reasonable one but also in public interest and the Central Act, insofar as D
it purports to take away such right to practice or to be continued in service,
-,. thus, imposes an unreasonable restriction interfering with their fundamental
right; that having regard to the provisions of Section 67 of the Central Act,
-v the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act having been made
applicable, the rights and liabilities accrued prior to coming into force of the
Central Act must be held to be saved and those diploma holders who were on
E
the register maintained by the State are entitled to continue practice; that
there exists an inconsistency insofar as whereas under the Central Act only
the degree holders are entitled to be enrolled in the register maintained by
the Central Council but the State Act recognizes the diploma and certificate
holders also; and that in terms of Section 6(l)(c) of the General Clauses Act F
not only a vested or accrued right but also an inchoate right is protected.
~
~ Respondents-Union and the States inter alia contended that the State
for maintaining better standard in profession can lay down qualification which
need not satisfy the rest of public importance particularly in view of the fact
that the Parliament or the States by making suitable enactments can always G
lay down the qualifications for carrying on any profession; that keeping in
view the number of veterinary colleges which have been opened in the states,
the services of a large number of degree holders can be utilized therefor and
~ in fact thousands of such degree holders were still unemployed; that there
exists a distinction between simple repeal of an Act substituted by another
H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.
.- - - - \ .. . -

A and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would have no application as the
Central Act intended to bring about a new sitllation, the same would ipso facto
a
be pointer to the fact that both the Central Act and the State Act c~nnot
stand together.

·Dismissing the writ petition and appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1. Sub-clause (g) of clause (I) of Article 19 of the Constitution
of India confers a fundamental right to practice any profession or to earry
on
any occupation, trade or business. ClauS<S (6) of Article 19 is in two parts. It
empowers Parliament and the State Legislature to impose reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the sub-clauses (g) of
c Clause (I) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India in the interest of the
general public. The second part of the said provision provides that in particular
nothing therein shall affect the operation of an existing law insofar as it
relates to or prevents the State from making any law inter alia relating to
the profession or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any
D profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business. By reason of a
statute-law, therefore, undoubtedly, qualifications can be laid down inter alia
for practicing any profession or to carry OD any ~ccupation. Such
qualifications bad been laid down by the State Act. If by reason of the central
Act, a higher qualification bas been laid down, the same would primafacie be
presumed to have been enacted in the interest of the general public. Any
.E profession which deah with the life of a human being or an animal may be
regulated or controlled. Essential qualifications can be down for the purpose
of entry in the State services.
[Paras 28, 29, 30 and 32) (727-A-B; F-H; 728-A..C)

F .2. The validity of a statute would ordinarily be tested keeping in view
the social conditions as were existing on the date of coming into force thereof.
It is one thing to say that a law causes hardship to a section of the people but
it is another thing to say that the same would be unconstitutional It may be
that with the passage of time, a statute which was intra vires on the date of
coming into force of the Act may be considered to be ultra vires. However, for
G that there should be sufficient materials which are either brought on record
or of which the court can take judicial notice. The difficulty would arise where
the materials brought on record may provide for divergent views. In such a
situation, the court will not ordinarily ex~rcise its power of judicial review·
over legislation. The facts on the basis whereof the Legislature of a State or
H the Parliament bad chosen to rely upon should be the guidi~g factor. The
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. 711
Legislature of Executive can have several choices or option should have been A
preferred. (Para 35) (729-A-C(

3. Even in the matter of laying down of qualification by a statute, the
restriction imposed as envisaged under second part of Clauses (6) of Article
19 of the Constitution of India must be construed being in consonance with
the interest of the general public. The tests laid down stand satisfied. B
(Para 39( (730-B(

State ofMadras v. V.G. Row. (1952) SCR 597, Saghir Ahmadv. The State
of U.P. and Ors.. AIR (1954) SC 728; Akadasi Padhan v. State ofOrissa. [1963(
Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691; Mis. Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. and Anr., etc. v. C
State of Orissa and Ors., AIR (1991) SC 672; State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 326; Tinsukhia Electric Supply
Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam and Ors., [1989) 3 SCC 709; Utkal Contractors
and Joinery {P) Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Orissa, AIR (1987) SC 2310,
Rasbihari Panda and Ors. v. The State of Orissa, AIR (1969) SC 1081;
Amritsar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR (1969) SC 1100 and Dr. D
Mukhtiar Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 579
etc., referred to.

4. The provisions contained in Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary
Council Act, 1984 constitute a reasonable restriction within meaning of the
first part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution oflndia and the fundamental E
rights under Article 19(1)(g) thereof. (Para 51) (734-C-D)

5. It is one thing to say that laying down such qualification or taking
away the right of the practitioners to continue their practice is unconstitutional
but it is another thing to say the same cannot be given retrospective effect. A
statute does not operate retrospectively only because a person's right to F
continue in profession comes to an end. A person will have a right to enter
into a profession and continue therewith provided he holds the requisite
qualification. As and when a qualification is laid down by a law within the
meaning of Sub-clause (g) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India, the same would come into effect. In other words, it would act prospectively G
and, thus, not retrospectively, inasmuch as the practice he had already enjoyed
is not taken away. (Paras 53 and 54) [734-E-G)

, Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health.
Delhi Admn. Service and Ors., [1997( 11 SCC 687, relied on.
H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 6. The General Clauses Act, 1897 governs Parliamentary Acts. The
subject matter of the legislation is a state legislation. The Central Government
stepped in only because of the resolutions adopted the Central Government
by other States at a later stage, viz., 1997. Section 6 of the General clauses
Act, therefore, was referred to in Section 67 of the Central Act creating a
legal fiction as if both the Central Act and the State Act are enacted by the
B Parliament. In absence of such a legal fiction raised, the provisions of either
the General Clauses Act, 1897 or the respective State General Clauses Act
would have no application. It, therefore, does not create any right. It does not
make Section 6 of the General Clauses Act ipso facto applicable. Section 6
of the General Clauses Act would be attracted but it would have no application
C if a different intention appears. (Para 58) (735-G-H; 736-A-B)

7. Veterinary services in terms of the Central Act is in two Parts (1)
Veterinary services and (2) minor veterinary services. What would be the
minor veterinary services has been laid down by reason of a notification issued
by the respective State Governments in exercise of their power under clause
D (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Once such a notification has been issued,
indisputably, those who are not otherwise entitled to resort to veterinary
practices within the meaning of the Central Act can be asked to perform the
jobs of minor veterinary services. (Para 60) (736-D-E)

8. A distinction exists between a repeal simpliciter and a repeal by an
E Act which is substituted be another Act. The legal position as to where there
is a repeal of an enactment and simultaneously re-enactment whether the
renacted enactment manifests an intension imcompatible with or contrary to
the provision of the repeal statute has to be ascertained upon consideration of
all the relevant provisions of the re-enacted enactment. This is no longer res
F integra.
(Paras 61 and 65) (736-E-F; 738-F)
~
State ofPunjab v. Mohar Singh, (1995) 1 SCR 893; Gammon India Ltd ~
v. Special Chief Secretary and Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 354 and India Tobacco
Co. Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore and Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 512,
G relied on.

9. Whether such a right is protected or not must be considered having
regard to the statute in question. If a right has crystallized before the
repealing Act comes into force, by reason of repeal of the earlier statute
indisputably the right crystallized cannot be taken away. The right of the
H petitioners to practise in the field of veterinary practice has expressly been
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. 713
taken away. When such a right has been taken away upon laying down an A
essential qualification therefore which the petitioners admittedly do not
posses, the right of the petitioners to continue to practice despite the fact
that they do not fulfill the criteria laid down under the Parliamentary Act or
the Central Act would not survive. The expression "unless a different
intention appears" contained in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, thus,
in this case, would be clearly attracted. A right whether inchoate or accrued B
or acquired right can be held to be protected provided the right survives. If
the right itself does not sun-ive and either expressly or by necessary
implication it stands abrogated, the question of applicability of Section 6 of
the General Clauses Act would not arise at all.
(Para 67, 69 and 701 (739-D-E; F-H; 740-A-BI C
Bansidhar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (198912 SCC 557 and Thyssen
Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (19991 9 SCC 334, relied
on.

ChiefAdjudication Officer and Anr. v. Maguire, (19991 2 ALL ER 859, D
referred to.

10. The liability of a person to get himself registered on the State
register is imperative so as to enable the State to control the profession as
such. A subordinate legislation, as is well known, when validly framed,
becomes a part of the Act. Regulation 3 of The Maharashtra Veterinary E
Practitioners. (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
veterinary practice) Regulations 1981 provides for the mode and manner in
which registration of a medical practitioner has to be carried out. Regulation
3 encompasses within its fold both the categories, viz., practitioners as also
the employees. The necessity to maintain a register cannot be minimized.
Unless the name of a person is placed on the register, it may not be possible F
for the State or even the Veterinary Council to keep a watch on the
performance of the said persons and in particular when a complaint is made
against him. Only when a person's name is placed on the register, the question
of striking off his name therefrom in the event of commission of a professional
or other misconduct would arise. A person who is in service, in the event of
his committing any misconduct, may also be held to be subject to disciplinary G
action. For the aforementioned purpose, the statute being vague, a purposive
construction thereto must be given.

(Paras 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78) (740-F-G; 741-A-E)

Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
......
A Group and Ors., (2006( 3 SCC 434 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi
Narain Dhut, (2007) 4 SCALE 36, referred to. >-
Statutory /nte1pretation by Francis Bennion, referred to.

11. For the purpose of registration, the conditions laid down under
B Regulations 3 were to be fulfilled. A person, thus, is not entitled to be
registered by the State Council or the Central Council only because he holds
an educational qualification. Several other factors are required to be taken
into consideration therefor. The right to practice or right to be in service or
right to obtain an appointment in government or semi-government organil.ation ,.
would, thus, be dependent upon a person's name being registered therefor in ~
c the State or Central register, as the case may be. So long their names are
not on the register, the question of their acquiring any vested or accrued right
does not arise. In a case of this nature, the court cannot confer a right to
practice on the certificate holders despite the fact that their names do not
find place in the register maintained by the State Council or the Central
D Council. [Para 80) (742-8-C)

12. That those who are in service of the State or the semi-government
or local self government organil.ations must be held to have a right to continue r'

in service. The employees of the State enjoy a status. A person who enjoys a
status can be deprived therefrom only in accordance with law having regard 'r
E to the nature of right conferred on him under Article 311 of the Constitution
oflndia. The law in this behalf is clear. Their nature of duty may change but
they would be otherwise entitled to continue in service. The State of
Maharashtra or for that matter even the other States have issued notification
(s) in terms of clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Minor veterinary
services, therefore, having been specified in terms of the said notification,
F those certificate holders who are in the services of the State or the other
semi-government organizations are entitled to continue in services, subject .,,.
of course to, carrying out their duties strictly in terms of the notification
"(
issued by the State under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. In the
event, any State has not issued such a notification, they may do so.
G (Para 81] (742-D-G)

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4 of2005.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

H WITH
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA. J.] 715

..\.
Civil Appeal No. 2537 of2007 . A
.-'
G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Aruneshwar Gupta, Sonarn
P. Wangdi, A.Gs, Swarup Singh, AAG, Pb., Avtar Singh Rawat, AAG, R.F.
Nariman, U.U. Lalit, Mohd. Yusuph, Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Amit Sibal,
Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Hema! K. Sheth (for Lawyer's Knit &
Co.,) Sanjay Sen, Assish Jha, Jayant Mohan, Manu Aggarwal, Manik B
Karanjawala, D.D. Karnath, Wasim A. Qadri, V.K. Verma, Anil Katiyar, Navin
Prakash, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Anukul Raj, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, R.
Satish, Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Shashwat Gupta, Shikha Tandon,
.... A. Mariaputharn, Aruna Mathur (for Aruputham Aruna & Co.,) Ashok Bhan,
~~
D.S. Mabra, S.S. Shinde, V.N. Raghupathy, Tara Chandra Sharma, Neelam
Sharma, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam, S. Prabhu Rarnasubrarnanian, J.S.
c
Attri, Khwairakparn Nobin Singh, S. Biswajit Meitei, D. Rao, Bhavanishankar
V. Gadnis, Sunita B. Rao, Anil Srivastava, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh,
Rahul Shukla, Tripurari Ray, T.V. George, Riku Sharma, Minakshi Sarma (for
Corporate Law Group.,) Suparna Srivastava, Puja Matlani, Rajesh Srivastava,
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, R.K. Pandey, A.K. Sinha, Ajay Siwach, Manjit Singh, D
Harikesh Singh, Vikrant Singh Bais, B.S. Banthia, Sunita Sharma, D.N.
Gobardhan, Pinky Anand, Piyush Singhal, Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behera, B.
~
Sunita Rao, Ranjan Mukherjee, Kamini Jaiswal, Sanjay R. Hedge, R. Ayyarn
Perumal, Shreekant N. Terdal, M.T. George, Bimal Roy Jad, Mohanprasad
y
Meharia, Sunita Hazarika, Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure and B.B. Singh Radha
E
Shyam Jena for the appearing parties

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted in S.L.P.

2. Constitutionality and/ or applicability of the provisions of Section 30 F
of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short "the Central Act") is in
question herein.

3. Before, however, embarking on the questions involved, we may at
the outset notice that the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 11880 G
of 2006 arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Writ
Petition No. 4619 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by
the appellant herein in regard to the applicability of Section 30 of the Central
Act was dismissed. In the said writ petition, the following prayers were made:
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 6 S.C.R.

A (a) the declaration that the non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who
are registered under the Maharashtra Veterinary Practitioners Act,
1971 (for short to be referred as "the State Veterinary Act") are eligible
to practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner and on such
conditions as they were prior to coming into force of the Indian
Veterinary Councils Act, 1984 ("Central Veterinary Act" for short) in
B the State of Maharashtra;

(b) to declare that non-graduate Veterinary Practitioners who ar~eligible
to be registered under the State Veterinary Act will be permitted to
practice Veterinary medicine in the same manner and on such conditions
as they were prior to the coming into force of the Central Veterinary
c Act in the State of Maharashtra; and

(c) for directions to renew the registration of non-graduate Veterinary
Practitioners in the register maintained by the State Council under the
State Veterinary Act til the coming into force of the Central Veterinary
Act.
D
4. The Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioners representing similarly placed veterinary practitioners
from several States and Union Territories of India against the Union of India
as also the concerned States praying inter alia for the following reliefs:
E "(a) issue an appropriate writ revoking and declaring null and void the
impugned Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 and

(b) issue an appropriate writ revoking and declaring null and void
Rule No. 37145 oflndian Veterinary Practitioners Regulation, 1992.

F *** *** ***
(I) issue a writ of mandamus/any other appropriate writ, order or
directions restraining the Respondents from acting/ giving effect to
the provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act,
1984 and Rule No. 37/45 oflndian Veterinary Practitioners Regulation,
G 1992 and the above notifications mentioned in prayer clause (c) to (k)
above."

In the writ petition, prayers have also been made for revoking and
declaring notifications issued by the respective State Governments in terms
of Section 30 of the Central Act as void.
H
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 717
5. We will. however, record the facts of the matter from Civil Appeal A
arising out of SLP (C) No. I 1880 of 2006.

Appellant is an Association registered under the Trade Unions Act. It
purports to represent the Veterinary Practitioners of the State of Maharashtra.
The subject of legislation was a State subject. The States of Haryana, Bihar,
Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, however, adopted a resolution B
purported to be in terms of Clause (I) of Article 252 of the Constitution of
India requesting the Union of India to make a parliamentary legislation to the
'1 effect that the matter may be regulated in those States by Parliamentary Act.
>- Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said resolution, Parliament enacted the
Central Act being Act No. 52 of 1984. It came into force with effect from 18th C
August, 1984. It was enacted with a view to regulate veterinary practice and
to provide, for that purpose, for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of
India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of the
veterinary practitioners and for matters connected therewith.

6. We may hereafter notice some of the provisions of the Central Act. D
7. Sections 2(e), 2(f) and 2(g) of the Central Act read as under:

"(e) "recognised veterinary qualification" means any of the veterinary
qualifications included in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule;

(f) "register" means a register maintained under this Act;
E
(g) "registered veterinary practitioner" means a person whose name
is for the time being duly registered in a register;"

8. Section 3 provides for the establishment of the Central Council and
the State Councils. F
9. Sections 15, 22, 23, 30 and 67 of the Central Act read as under:

"15. (I} The veterinary qualifications granted by any veterinary
institution in India which are included in the First Schedule shall be
recognised veterinary qualifications for the purposes of this Act, G
(2) Any veterinary institution in India, which grants a veterinary
qualification not included in the First Schedule may apply to the
Central Government to have such qualification recognised and the
Central Government, after consulting the Council, may, by notification
in the Official Gazette amend the First Schedule so as to include such H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A qualification therein and any such notification may also direct that an
entry shall be made in the last column of the First Schedule against
such veterinary qualification declaring that it shall be a recognised
veterinary qualification only when granted after a specified date.

22. Minimum standards of veterinary education.-
B
(1) The Council may, by regulations, specify the minimum standards
of veterinary education required for granting recognised veterinary
qualifications by veterinary institutions in those States to which this
Act extends.
"~
c (2) Copies of the draft regulations and of all subsequent amendments
thereof shall be furnished by the Council to the State Government
concerned and the Council shall, before submitting such regulations
or any amendments thereof, as the case may be, to the Central
Government for approval, take into consideration the comments of the
State Government received within three months from the furnishing of
b the copies as aforesaid.

(3) The Central Government may, before approving such regulations
or any amendments thereof, consult the Indian Council of Agricultural "
Research. y

E (4) The Committee constituted under section 12 shall from lime to time
report to the Council on the efficacy of the regulations and may
recommend to the Council such amendments thereof as it may think
fit.

23. Indian veterinary practitioners register.-
F
(I) The Council shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of
this Act, cause to be maintained in such form and in such manner as ,,.
may be provided by regulations a register of veterinary practitioners --(
to be known as the Indian veterinary practitioners register which shall
contain the names of all persons who possess the recognised veterinary
G qualifications and who are for the time being enrolled on a State
veterinary register of the State to which this Act extends.

(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Council to keep the
Indian veterinary practitioners register in accordance with the ) -.
provisions of this Act and of any orders made by the Council, and
H from time to time to revise the register and publish it in the Gazette
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 719
,.__ of India or in such other manner as may be provided by regulations. A
(3) Such register shall be deemed to be a public document within the
meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and may be proved by a
' copy published in the Gazette of India.

(4) Each State Veterinary Council shall furnish to the Council six
B
printed copies of the State veterinary register as soon as may be after
the I st day of April of each year and each State Veterinary Council
shall inform the Council without delay of all additions, and other
.; amendments in the Slllte veterinary register made from time to time .
>.
30. Right of persons who are enrolled on the Indian veterinary
practitioners register.-
c
No person, other than a registered veterinary practitioner, shall-

(a) hold office as veterinary physician or surgeon or any other like
office (by whatever name called) in Government or in any institution
maintained by a local or other authority; D
...,, (b) practise veterinary medicine in any State :

Provided that the State Government may, by order, permit a person
y
holding a diploma or certificate of veterinary supervisor, stockman or
stock assistant (by whatever name called) issued by the Directorate E
of Animal Husbandry (by whatever name called) of any State or any
veterinary institution in India, to render under the supervision and
direction of a registered veterinary practitioner, minor veterinary
services.

Explanation.-"Minor veterinary services" means the rendering of F
preliminary veterinary aid, like, vaccination, castration, and dressing
~
of wounds, and such other types of preliminary aid or the treatment
'-y-
of such ailments as the State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, specify in this behalf;

(c) be entitled to sign or authenticate a veterinary health certificate or G
any other certificate required by any law to be signed or authenticated
by duly qualified veterinary practitioner;

~ (d) be entitled to give evidence at any inquest or in any court of law
~

as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on any
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A matter relating to veterinary medicine.

67. Repeal and saving.-

As from the commencement of this Act in any State, every other Act
relating to any matter contained in this Act and in force in that State
shall, to the extent to which that Act or any provision contained
B
therein corresponds, or is repugnant, to this Act or any provision
contained in this Act, stand repealed and the provisions of section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, shall apply to such repeal as if
such other Act were a Central Act."
,..
c 1953 (for
10. The State of Bombay enacted Bombay Veterinary Practitioners Act,
short "the 1953 Act"). The matter relating to veterinary practice in
-'

the then State of Bombay as also the requisition in the service of the State
appointments for the purpose of veterinary duties was regulated. The 1953
Act provided for maintenance of the register of the veterinary practitioners.
Sections 14, 19, 24 and 25, which are relevant for our purpose, read as under:
D
"14 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall, ifhe
holds any of the qualifications included in the Schedule be entitled
on application to be registered, on payment of a fee of Rs. 15 and on ~

giving evidence to the satisfaction of the Registration Officer or the
Registrar, as the case may be, of his possession of a qualification y
E entitling him for registration.

(2) The State Government may, after consulting the Registration Officer
or the Council, as the case may be, permit the registration of any
person who has been actually conducting veterinary practice in the
State of Bombay since a date prior to the 1st day of January 1944,
F notwithstanding the fact that he may not be possessing qualifications
entitling him to have his name entered in the register.
.,,
(3) Every person for the time being registered with the veterinary -{
Council of any other State in India under any law for the registration
of veterinary practitioners in force in such State shall, if reciprocity
G of registration has been arranged with such Council, be entitled to be
registered under this Act, on making an application in that behalf, on
payment of a fee of Rs. 15 and on his informing the Registration
Officer or the Registrar, as the case may be, of the date of his registration
under the said law and on giving a correct description of his ) -
H qualifications with the dates on which they were granted.
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J] 721

(4) Any person who has been convicted of a cognizable offence as A
defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or who, being or
having been subject to military law has been convicted under the
Army Act or under the Indian Army Act, 1911 or under the Army Act,
1950, of an offence which is also a cognizable offence as so defined
and any person who after due enquiry has been held guilty by the B
Council of infamous conduct in any professional respect may be
refused registration under this Act.

19. No person shall, except with the sanction of the State Government,
hold any appointment for the performance of veterinary duties in any
veterinary dispensary, hospital or infirmary which is not supported C
entirely by voluntary contributions or which belongs to a local authority
or in any public establishment, body or institution, unless he is
registered under this Act.

24 Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being
in force, no person other than a person registered under Part IV of this D
Act -

(a) shall sign or authenticate any veterinary or physical fitness
certificate required by any law or rule to be signed or authenticated
y by a duly qualified veterinary practitioner, or

(b) shall be qualified to give evidence as an expert under section 45 E
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or any matter relating to veterinary
science.

25. No person shall add to his name any title, description, letters or
abbreviations which imply that he holds a degree, diploma, licence or
certificate as his qualification to practice any system of veterinary F
science unless -

(a) he actually holds such degree, diploma, licence or certificate; and

(b) such degree, diploma, licence or certificate is specified in the
Schedule or his recognized by law for the time being in force in India G
or in any part thereof or has been conferred, granted or issued by an
authority empowered or recognized as competent by the State
Government to confer, grant, or issue such degree, diploma, licence or
certificate."

11. The State of Bombay was bifurcated into the State of Maharashtra H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A and the State of Gujarat with effect from Ist May, 1960.
12. The State of Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners Act, 1971 (for short "the 1971 Act"). The said Act came into
force from 15th November, 1971. Section 15 of the 1971 Act mandates the
State to cause a register to be prepared for veterinary practitioners of the
B State and maintained in such form as may be directed. The register is to
contain the name, address and qualification of every person registered
thereunder together with the date on which such qualification was acquired.

13. Sub-sections ( l) and (2) of Section 18 of the 1971 Act read as under:

c "18 (I) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person shall, ifhe
holds any of the qualifications included in the Schedule, be entitled
on application to be registered, on payment of such fee as may be
provided by regulations and on giving evidence to the satisfaction of
the Registration Officer or the Registrar as the case may be, of his
possession of a qualification entitling him for registration.
D
(2) The State Government may, after consulting the Registration Officer
or the Council, as the case may be, permit the registration of any
person who has been actually conducting veterinary practice in the
State of Maharashtra on such conditions as may be provided for by
regulations made for this purpose, notwithstanding the fact that he
E
may not be possessing qualifications entitling him to have his name
entered in the register."

14. Section 23 of the 1971 Act contained an identical provision which
is in pari materia with the provisions of the 1953 Act. Section 26 empowers
p the Council to call for information and attend examination. Section 33 provided
for control in the following terms:
.,...
"3 3. If it shall appear to the State Government on the report of the
Council or otherwise, that the course of study and examinations
prescribed by any of the institutions specified in column I of the
G Schedule conferring the qualifications described in column 2 of that
Schedule with their abbreviations specified in column 3 thereof are
not such as to secure the possession by persons obtaining such
qualifications of the requisite knowledge and skill for the efficient
practice of their profession, or if it shall appear to the State Government,
) -
on the report of the Council or otherwise, that the course of study and
H
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 723
examinations prescribed by any institution conferring a qualification A
not entered in the Schedule are such as to secure the possession by
persons obtaining such qualification of the requisite knowledge and
skill for the efficient practice of their profession, it shall be lawful for
the State Government from time to time by notification in the Official
Gazette, to direct that the possession of any qualification entered in
the Schedule shall not entitle any person to registration under this B
Act or to direct that the possession of any qualification not entered
in the Schedule shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, entitle a
person to be so registered as the case may be, and the Schedule shall
thereupon be deemed for all purposes be altered accordingly."

IS.Section 37 of the 1971 Act provides for a rule making power whereas
c
Section 38 thereof provides for regulation making power. In terms of the
provisions of Sections 18, 26 and 33 'recognised veterinary qualifications'
were laid down in the schedule appended to the 1971 Act, item No. 20 and
24 whereof rC}ad as under:
D
"Serial Institutions Qualifications Abbreviation
No. (1) (2) for
"' registration
-y- (3)
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** *** E
*** *** *** ***
20. Bombay Veterinary (I) Graduate of Bengal GB.V.C.
College Veterinary College
(2) Graduate in
Veterinary Science F
""'!
',...-
*** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
24. Nagpur Veterinary Two-year Diploma "
College Certificate
G
16. The State of Maharashtra in exercise of its power conferred upon
it under Sub-section (1) of Section 38 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 18
of the 1971 Act made regulations known as "The Maharashtra Veterinary
Practitioners (Conditions for registration of persons actually conducting
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A veterinary practice) Regulations 1981" (for short "the 1981 Regulations").
Regulation 3 reads as under:

"3 (I) The conditions on which the registration of any person under
sub-section (2) of section 18 of the Act may be pennitted shall be as
follows, namely:
B
(a) the said person shall possess a certificate of completion of practical
and theoretical training course:-

(i) prescribed by any Government functioning in the Bombay
area. Hyderabad area of Vidarbha region before the fonnation of
c the State of Maharashtra and who is actually conducting practice
in the State of Maharashtra, since then: or
(ii) Prescribed or recognized by the Government of Maharashtra
from time to time, after the fonnation of the State of Maharashtra
and who is actually conducting practice in the State of
Maharashtra, since then, for eligibility for appointment to a post
D
of Livestock Supervisor, Stockmen, Stockmen-cum-Health
Assistant or Veterinary Assistant: or

(b) Shall have at the time of registration, practical experience for a
period of not less than ten years in com pounding and dispensing
under any registered veterinary practitioners possessing a degree in
E
veterinary science of a statutory University."

17. Similar legislations were existing in many other States.

18. Although the Central Act came into force in 1984, several States did
F not adopt the same. On or from 1997,.the Central Act was made applicable
to the States of Haryana, Bihar, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan and
all Union Territories.

19. The State of Maharashtra issued a notification dated 26th August,
1997 in tenns of Section 30 of the Central Act specifying minor veterinary
G services to be rendered by the Veterinary Science Certificate or Diploma
holders in the Government Service or in Semi-Government organizations.

20. The contention of the writ petitions inter alia is that having regard
to the fact that the veterinary practitioners who were possessing 'diploma in
veterinary science' or 'certificate in veterinary science' which were recognized
H by the State of Maharahstra and some other States they could not have been
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 725
divested of their right to practice by reason of the Central Act on the premise A
that they having the requisite qualification had a fundamental right in terms
of Article 19( I }(g) of the Constitution to carry on veterinary practice or
continue to be in the service of the State and any restriction placed on such
rights should not only be a reasonable one but also in public interest. The
Central Act, insofar as it purports to take away such right to practice or to
be continued in service, thus, imposes an unreasonable restriction interfering B
with their fundamental right inasmuch as the degree holders alone cannot
serve the rural areas. Our attention in this behalf has also been drawn to the
letters addressed by some Members of the Parliament to the concerned
Ministries stating that in the event the services of the petitioners are dispensed
with, the same would not be in public interest. C
21. The second leaf of argument both in the writ petition as also in the
civil appeal arising out of the SLP is that having regard to the provisions of
Section 67 of the Central Act, the provisions of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act having been made applicable, the rights and liabilities accrued
prior to coming into force of the Central Act must be held to be saved. D
22. The contention of the Union of India and the respective State
Governments, on the other hand, is that keeping in view the number of
veterinary colleges which have been opened in the states, the services of a
large number of degree holders can be utilized therefor and in fact thousands
of such degree holders are still unemployed. In any event, the State can, for E
maintaining better standard in profession, lay down qualification which need
not satisfy the test of public importance particularly in view of the fact that
the Parliament or the States by making suitable enactments can always lay
down the qualifications for carrying on any profession.

23. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it was urged, would have no
F
application in a situation of this nature inasmuch as the very fact that the
Central Act intended to bring about a new situation, the same would ipso
facto be a pointer to the fact that both the Central Act and the State Act
cannot stand together.
G
24. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by reason of the
impugned judgment, has upheld the contention of the respondents herein. It,
however, opined that relief (c) prayed for by the writ petitioners before it, in
view of the notification issued on I st August, 1997 in terms whereof the

'
Central Act had been introduced in the State of Maharashtra with effect from
the first day of August, 1997, did not survive. It furthermore held that in view H
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A of the provisions of Sub-section (I) of Section 23 of the Central Act as
existing veterinary practitioners whose names appeared in the register part I
maintained by the State Veterinary Council are duly protected, relief (a) as
reproduced hereinbefore would be covered thereby.

25. Before us Mr. R.F. Nar_iman, learned senior counsel advanced
B arguments on behalf of the appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No. 11880 of2006 whereas Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appeared on
behalf of the writ petitioners in the writ petition.

26. The submission of the learned counsel is that Section 67 of the ...
Central Act must be read in two parts. By reason of the first part, it is -(
c conceded that the State Act stands repealed, but it is contended that once
the first part of Section 67 comes into force, by reason of the second part,
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is given effect to. In terms of Clauses
(b) and (c) of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, not only the previoµs
operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered
D thereunder but also any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued
or incurred under any enactment so repealed would stand protected. In that
view of the matter, those diploma holders who were on the register maintained
~
by the State are entitled to continue to practice. Our attention in this behalf
has also been drawn to the fact that prior to 11th August, 1993, the Maharashtra
Veterinary Council is said to have imposed a condition de'hors the 19~1 Act
-.,,-
E refusing to register certificate holders unless they were appointed in government
or semi-government institutions and the validity thereof was pending
consideration in writ petition No. 3377of1993 before the Bombay High Court
and as only by a judgment dated 15.01.2003, the impugned condition has been
set aside as a result whereof 25,000 certificate holders who could not get
themselves also became entitled to the reliefs therefor.
F
27. The submission of the learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf ,...-
of the Union of India, the Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of ~·
the Veterinary Council of India and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, on the other hand,
G is that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would be attracted only when
no different intention appears in the new Act. It was pointed out that there
exists a distinction between a simple repeal and repeal of an Act substituted
by another. If the new Act provides for something which is wholly different
from the purview of the repealed act, evidently, a different intention would
appear.
H
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 727
28. Article 19 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of A
certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. Sub-clause (g) of clause (I)
of Article 19 of the Constitution of lndia confers a fundamental right to
protect any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Clause (6) of Article 19 reads as under:

"19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. - B
(I) ....

(2) ••••

(3) ....

(4) ....
c
(5) ....

(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the D
State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general
public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-
clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to, -
E
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising
any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled
by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to
the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise." p
29. The above provision is in two parts. It empowers Parliament and the
State Legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the sub-clause (g) of Clause(!) of Article 19 of the Constitution
of India in the interest of the general public. The second part of the said
provision provides that in particular nothing therein shall affect the operation G
of an existing law insofar as it relates to or prevents the State from making
any law inter alia relating to the profession or technical qualifications
necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade
.:...-
or business. By reason of a statute - law, therefore, undoubtedly, qualifications
can be laid down inter a/ia for practising any profession or carry on any
H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A occupation.
30. Such qualifications had been laid down by the State Act. If by
reason of the Central Act, a higher qualification has been laid down, the same,
in our opinion, would prima facie be presumed to have been enacted in the
interest of the general public.
B
3 I. We may notice that several States did not make any legislation
covering the field like the State of Maharashtra. Some States, however, did.

32. Any profession which deals with the life of a human being or an
animal may be regulated or controlled. Essential qualifications can be laid
C down for the purpose of entry in the State services. In the State of Maharashtra,
rendition of veterinary service was primarily the responsibility of the Zilla
Parishads and Panchayat Samities, as specified in Section 100 (l)(a) of the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961.

"100. (1) (a) It shall be the duty ofa Zilla Parishad so far as the district
D fund at its disposal will allow, to make reasonable provision within the
District with respect to all or any of the subjects enumerated in the
First Schedule as amended from time to time under sub-section (2) (in
this Act referred to as "the District List") and to execute or maintain
works or development schemes in the District relating to any such
E subjects."

33. Item No. 14 of the First Schedule and Item Nos. 9 and IO of the
Second Schedule appended to the said Act read as under:

"First Schedule

F 14. Veterinary aid (excluding District Veterinary Hospitals but including
veterinary dispensaries, vett:rinary aid centres and village veterinary r--
chests ). -...,.'

Second Schedule

G (9) Village Veterinary Chests.

(10) Veterinary Aid Centres."

34. It is somewhat interesting to note that even in terms of the 1953 Act,
there was no provision for allowing a diploma holder to practice.
H
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.O.L [S.B. SINHA. J.] 729
35. The validity of a statute would ordinarily be tested keeping in view A
the social conditions as were existing on the date of coming into force thereof.
It is one thing to say that a law causes hardship to a section of the people
but it is another thing to say that the same would be unconstitutional. It may
be that with the passage of time, a statute which was intra vires on the date
of coming into force of the Act may be considered to be ultra vires. However.
for that there should be sufficient materials which are either brought on record B
or of which the court can take judicial notice. The difficulty would arise where
the materials brought on record may provide for divergent views. In such a
situation, the court will not ordinarily exercise its power of judicial review over
legislation. The facts on the basis whereof the Legislature of a State or the
Parliament had chosen to rely upon should be the guiding factor. The C
Legislature of Executive can have several choices or options to deal with a
matter, and courts cannot say which choice or option should have been
preferred.

36. Before us, the Union of India as also the various States including
the State of Maharashtra, have placed certain facts. According to the State D
Governments, despite coming into force of the Central Act they had not opted
therefor, immediately as they had to make a detailed study of the applicability
thereof in the fact situation obtaining in that particular State. We may by way
of example consider the material placed before us by the State of Maharashtra,
from a perusal whereof it appears that it is true that when qualified graduate E
veterinary doctors were not available in sufficient numbers, service of
unqualified/diploma holders were utilized. But today we are living in a changed
scenario. About 260 post graduates are produced every year and about 2000
qualified graduates are found to be without the job. It has been pointed out
that prior to I970 only I Veterinary Graduate was working in each Community
Development Block and around IO- I 5 veterinary Graduates in each district, F
whereas this situation has changed drastically in 2005.

~ 37. An attempt has been made in the counter-affidavit to demonstrate
that due to availability of qualified graduates, duties and responsibilities of
diploma holders were curtailed and shifted towards the degree holders.
Considering the worldwide trend having regard to international conventions G
and covenants, the plea of the petitioners to continue old practices, cannot
be sustained.

)'._ 38. Similar is the position in the State of Rajasthan as from its counter
affidavit, it would appear that the number of veterinary doctors are sufficient H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A to provide for the veterinary services in the State and many degree holders
are still unemployed.

39. We, therefore, are of the opinion that even in the matter of laying
down of qualification by a statute, the restriction imposed as envisaged under
second part of Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India must be
B construed being in consonance with the interest of the general public. The
tests laid down, in our opinion, stand satisfied. We may, however, notice that
Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India stands on a higher footing
vis-a-vis Clause (5) thereof. We say so in view of the celebrated decision of
this Court in State of Madras v. V.G. Row. [1952) SCR 597 wherein it was
C stated:
"15 .... It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of
reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each
individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard or general
pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases.
D The nature of the right allegzd to have been infringed, the underlying
purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil
sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition,
the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial
verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own
conception of what is reasonable, in all the circumstances of a given
E case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy and the scale of values
of the Judges participating in the decision should play an important
part, and the limit to their interference with legislative judgment in
such cases can only be dictated by their sense of responsibility and
self-restraint and the sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant
F not only for people of their way of thinking but for all, and that the
majority of the elected representatives of the people have, in
authorising the imposition of the restrictions, considered them to be
reasonable."

40. The tests laid down therein, viz., the test of reasonableness as also
G · general public interest, however, may not ipso facto apply in a case involving
Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

41. Here we may deal with the extent of judicial review permissible under
Article 19(6). It was observed in Saghir Ahmad v. The State of U.P. and Ors.,
AIR (1954) SC 728 by Mukherjea, J. at p. 727 in the following terms:
H
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. (S.B. SINHA. J.) 731
The new clause in Article 19(6) has no doubt been introduced with A
a view to provide that a State can create a monopoly in its own favour
in respect of any trade or business; but the amendment does not make
the establishment of such monopoly a reasonable restriction within
the meaning of the first clause of Article 19(6). The result of the
amendment is that the State would not have to justify such action as B
reasonable at all in a court of law, and no objection could be taken
to it on the ground that it is an infringement of the rights guaranteed
under Article 19( I )(g) of the Constitution.

42. The validity of a law creating a State monopoly came into question
in Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, [1963) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 691 wherein C
Gajendragadkar, J. observed:

'"A law relating to' a State monopoly cannot, in the context, include
all the provisions contained in the said law whether they have direct
relation with the creation of the monopoly or not. In our opinion, the
said expression should be construed to mean the law relating to the D
monopoly in its absolutely essential features. If a law is passed
creating a State monopoly, the Court should enquire what are the
provisions of the said Jaw which are basically and essentially necessary
for creating the State monopoly. It is only those essential and basic
provisions which are protected by the latter part of Article 19(6). If
there are other provisions made by the Act which are subsidiary, E
incidental or helpful to the operation of the monopoly, they do not fall
under the first part of Article 19(6) .

... the amendment (First Amendment) clearly indicates that State
monopoly in respect of any trade or business must be presumed to
be reasonable and in the interests of general public, so far as Article F
19(1 )(g) is concerned."

43. The position of law has since been consistently reiterated in Mis.
Orient Paper and Industries Ltd. and Anr. etc. v. State of Orissa and Ors.,
AIR (1991) SC 672, State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. L. Abu Kavur Bai and G
Ors., AIR (1984) SC 326, Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State ofAssam
and Ors., (I 989) 3 SCC 709, Utkal Contractors and Joinery (P) Ltd. and Ors.
v. State ofOrissa, AIR (1987) SC 2310, Rasbihari Panda and Ors. v. The State
of Orissa, AIR (1969) SC 1081, Amritsar and Ors. v. State ofPunjab and Ors.,
AIR (1969) SC 1100, etc.
H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 44. In Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., [ 1998]
7 SCC 579 this Court primarily dealt with the right to practice the medical
profession as also the related question of right to well being of a person as
being part of life. In exercise of the power under Rule 2(ee)(iii) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rules, I945 the State of Punjab had issued a Notification dated
B 29. I0.1967 declaring all the Vaids/Hakims who had beer. registered under the
East Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1949 and the Pepsu
Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 2008 BK and the Punjab Ayurvedic
and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 as persons practising modem System of
Medicine for purposes of the Drugs Act. The aforementioned rule defined
"Registered Medical Practitioner". A medical practitioner who was registered
C with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicines, Punjab, and
was practising modern system of medicines was served with an order
prohibiting him from keeping in his possession any allopathic drug for
administration to patients and further issuing general direction to the chemists
not to issue allopathic drugs to any patient on the prescription of the said
D doctor. The medical Practitioner in response to the action moved the Punjab
& Haryana High Court and claimed that he was covered by the said notification
and was entitled to prescribe allopathic medicine to his patients and store
such drugs for their treatment. The High Court held the said notification ultra
vires to the provisions of rule 2 (ee) (iii) of the Drugs Rules as also contrary
E to the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, I956 and dismissed the writ
petition.

45. In that case, this Court has noticed a distinction between maintenance
of a State register and a Central register. Therein this Court while considering
the provisions of Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 observed:
F
"43 ... For a person to be registered in the Central Register, Section 25
enjoins that the Registrar should be satisfied that the person concerned
was eligible under that Act for such registration. Keeping this position
in mind, if we read Section l 7(3)(b), it becomes clear that the privileges
.,
which include the right to practise any system of medicine conferred
G by or under any law relating to registration of practitioners of Indian
medicine for the time being in force in any State on a practitioner of
Indian medicine enrolled on a State Register of Indian Medicine, are
not affected by the prohibition contained in sub-section (2) of Section
17."
H
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 733
...... 46. In regard to the applicability of Clause (6) of Article 19 of the A
Constitution of India, it was stated:

"48. The right to practise modem scientific medicine or Indian system
of medicine cannot be based on the provisions of the Drugs Rules
and declaration made thereunder by State Governments. Indeed, Ms
Indira Jaising has also submitted that the right to practise a system B
of medicine is derived from the Act under which a medical practitioner
is registered. But she has strenuously argued that the right which the
.... holders of a degree in integrated courses of Indian medicine are
). claiming is to have their prescription of allopathic medicine honoured
by a pharmacist or a chemist under the Pharmacy Act and the Drugs c
Act. Th is argument is too technical to be acceded to because
prescribing a drug is a concomitant of the right to practise a system
of medicine. Therefore, in a broader sense, the right to prescribe drugs
of a system of medicine would be synonymous with the right to
practise that system of medicine. In that sense, the right to prescribe
D
an allopathic drug cannot be wholly divorced from the claim to practise
allopathic medicine."
-~

47. Such is not the case here.
y
48. Furthermore, the Central Act is flexible. It not only recognizes the E
degrees granted by the institutions recognized by it, it provides extension of
grant of such recognition to other institutions also if they satisfy the tests.
Undoubtedly, such a flexible situation has been created by reason of the
Central Act only to meet the exigencies of the situations arising in future, if
any.
F
...., 49. lt is not for this Court to arrive at a conclusive opinion that the rural
.,..... areas continue to be heavily dependant on the certificate holders for providing
essential veterinary services as was submitted on behalf of the petitioners.
The State is presumed to know the needs of the citizens.
G
50. Our attention has been drawn to a Constitution Bench decision of
this Court in Akadasi Padhan v. State ofOrissa and Ors., AIR (1963) SC !047
: [1963] Supp 2 SCR 691 wherein two extreme positions were taken by the
"• learned counsel for the parties. In the said decision, the court was dealing
with the right of a State to create a State monopoly in the kendu leaves.
H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A Whereas the contention of the learned Attorney General was that creation of ,A_
such a monopoly is not required to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the
contention· of the counsel for the petitioners was that the court is entitled to
consider the same. It was held that if a law is passed creating a State
monopoly, the court should enquire as to what are the provisions of the said
law which are basically and essentially necessary therefor and only essential
B
and basic provisions are protected by the latter part of Clause (6) of Article
19 of the Constitution of India. It is not a case where the Central Act makes
any provision which are subsidiary, incidental or helpful to the operation of
the main provisions of the Act. ,_
...
c 51. We have noticed hereinbefore, that it has been conceded before us
and, in our opinion, rightly so, that the provisions contained in Section 30
of the Central Act constitute a reasonable restriction within the meaning of
the first part of Article 19(6) of the Constitution oflndia and the fundamental
rights under Article 19(1 )(g) thereof.
D 52. If the legislative power of the Parliament vis-a-vis the State
Government in this behalf is considered, a fortiori the State will have the
.,r.
legislative competence to lay down the qualification therefor.

53. It is one thing to say that laying down such qualification or taking '(
E away the right of the practitioners to continue their practice is unconstitutional
but it is another thing to say that the same cannot be given retrospective
effect.

54. A statute does not operate retrospectively only because a person's
right to continue in profession comes to an end. A person will have a right
F to enter into a profession and continue therewith provided he holds the
requisite qualification. As and when a qualification is laid down by a law
within the meaning of Sub-clause (g) of Clause (I) of Article 19 of the
"I'
Constitution of India, the same would come into effect. In other words, it
would act prospectively and, thus, not retrospectively, inasmuch as the practice
G he had already enjoyed is not taken away.
55. In Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of
Health, Delhi Admn. Services and Ors., [1997] l 1 SCC 687, this Court rejected
a similar contention to the effect that only because the practitioners got their I- -
names registered in the discipline of Ayurveda, they would have a right to
H
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. (S.B. SINHA, J.] 735
practice in such discipline as registered medical practitioners, and the privileges A
which a registered practitioner has stood protected by sub-section (3) of
Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 stating:

"5. We are, however, unable to accept such contention of Mr Mehta.
Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council
Act, 1970, in our view, only envisages that where before the enactment B
of the said Indian Medicine Central Act, 1970 on the basis of requisite
qualification which was then recognised, a person got himself
_,, registered as medical practitioner in the disciplines contemplated under
~ the said Act or in the absence of any requirement for registration such
person had been practising for five years or intended to be registered c
and was also entitled to be registered, the right of such person to
practise in the discipline concerned including the privileges of a
registered medical practitioner stood protected even though such
practitioner did not possess requisite qualification under the said Act
of 1970. It may be indicated that such view of ours is reflected from
D
the Objects and Reasons indicated for introducing sub-section (3) of
Section I 7 in the Act."
.....
56. Noticing the objects and reasons of the legislation, it was held:
y
"As it is not the case of any of the writ petitioners that they had
E
acquired the degree in between I 957 (sic 1967) and 1970 or on the date
of enforcement of provisions of Section 17(2) of the said Act and got
themselves registered or acquired right to be registered, there is no
question of getting the protection under sub-section (3) of Section 17
of the said Act. It is to be stated here that there is also no challenge
as to the validity of the said Central Act, 1970 ... " F
....,
57. We may now consider the second limb of submissions, viz., whether
y
the rights and privileges of the certificate holders are protected in terms of
Section 67 of the Act.

58. The General Clauses Act, 1897 governs Parliamentary Acts. The G
subject matter of the legislation is a State legislation. The Central Government
stepped in only because of the resolutions adopted by some State Governments
). at the outset and resolutions adopting the Central Government by other
•
States at a later stage, viz., 1997. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act,
H
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A therefore, was referred to in Section 67 of the Central Act creaiing a legal
fiction as if both the Central Act and the State Act are enacted by the
Parliament. In absence of such a legal fiction raised, the provisions of either
the General Clauses Act, 1897 or the respective State General Clauses Act
would have no application. It, therefore, does not create any right. It does not
make Section 6 of the General Clauses Act ipso facto applicable. Section 6
B
of the General Clauses Act would be attracted but it would have no application
if a different intention appears.

59. We have noticed the contention of the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners that there exists an inconsistency
C insofar as whereas under the Central Act only the degree holders are entitled
to be enrolled in the register maintained by the Gentral Council; the State Act
recognizes the diploma and certificate holders also .

. 60. Veterinary services in terms of the Central Act is in two pans (1)
veterinary services and (2) minor veterinary services. What would be the
D minor veterinary services has been laid down by reason of a notification
issued by the respective State Governments in exercise of their power under
clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Once such a notification has been <
issued, indisputably, those who are not otherwise entitled to resort to veterinary
practices within the meaning of the Central Act can be asked to perform the .'f
E -jobs.. of minor veterinary services. · ·•

61. A distinction exists between a repeal sirnpliciter and a repeal by an
Act which is substituted by another Act:

62. This legal position operating in the field is clear from the proposition
F laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Mohar
Singh; [1955] 1 SCR 893 wherein the law has been laid down in the following
terms:

" ... Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid
down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will follow unless, as
G
the section itself says, a different intention appears. In the case. of a
simple repeal there is scarcely any room for expression of a contrary
opinion. But when the repeal is followed by fresh legislation on the
same subject we would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions -;<-_
of the ·new Act, but only for the purpose of determinin~ whether they
H indicate a different intention. The line of enquiry would be, not whether
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA. J.] 737
J
r A..
the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether A
it manifests an intention to destroy them. We cannot therefore
subscribe to the broad proposition that Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act is ruled out when there is repeal of an enactment followed
by a fresh legislation. Section 6 would be applicable in such cases
also unless the new legislation manifests an intention incompatible
B
with or contrary to the provisions of the section. Such incompatibility
would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant
provisions of the new law and the mere absence of a saving clause
~

). is by itself not material. It is in the light of these principles that we
now proceed to examine the facts of the present case.'"
c
63. In Gammon India Ltd. v. Special Chief Secretary and Ors., (2006]
3 SCC 354, this Court held:

"73. On critical analysis and scrutiny of all relevant cases and opinions
of learned authors, the conclusion becomes inescapable that whenever
there is a repeal of an enactment and simultaneous re-enactment, the D
... re-enactment is to be considered as reaffirmation of the old law and
provisions of the repealed Act which are thus re-enacted continue in
y force uninterruptedly unless the re-enacted enactment manifests an
intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repealed
Act. Such incompatibility will have to be ascertained from a E
consideration of the relevant provisions of the re-enacted enactment
and the mere absence of the saving clause is, by itself, not material
for consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new enactment.
In other words, a clear legislative intention of the re-enacted enactment
has to be inferred and gathered whether it intended to preserve all the
F
rights and liabilities of a repealed statute intact or modify or to obliterate
-.
them altogether.
'y

74. On the touchstone of the principles of law culled out from the
judgments of various courts applied to the facts of these cases lead
to a definite conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial G
Taxes), Warangal Division was fully justified in initiating and
completing the proceedings under the A.P. GST Act even after it is
repealed."
"' 64. Yet again in India Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer,
H
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S. C.R.

A Bhavanipore and Ors .. [1975] 3 SCC 512. this Court held: A

"16. It is now wel I-settled that repeal connotes abrogation or obliteration
of one statute by another, from the statute book as completely as if
it had never been passed; when an Act is repealed, it must be considered
(except as to transactions past and closed) as if it had never existed.
B (Per Tindal. C.J., in Kay v. Goodwin and Lord Tenterdon in Surtees
v. Ellison cited with approval in State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch &
Co.).
,.__
17. Repeal is not a matter of mere form but one of substance, depending

c upon the intention of the legislature. If the intention indicated expressly
or by necessary implication in the subsequent statute was to abrogate
"
or wipe off the former enactment, wholly or in part, then it would be
a case of total or pro tanto repeal. If the intention was merely to
modify the former enactment by engrafting an exception or granting
an exemption, or by super-adding conditions, or by restricting,
D intercepting or suspending its operation, such modification would not
amount to a repeal (see Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. pp. 349, 353,
373, 374 and 375; Maxwells Interpretation of Statutes, I Ith Edn. pp.
..,
164, 390 based on Mount v. Taylor; Southerlands Statutory Construction
3rd Edn. Vol. I, para 2014 and 2022, pp. 468 and 490). Broadly speaking, ......
E the principal object of a repealing and amending Act is to excise dead
matter, prune off superfluities and reject clearly inconsistent enactments
see Mohinder Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur."

65. The legal position as to where there is a repeal of an enactment and
simultaneously re-enactment whether the re-enacted enactment manifests an
F intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the repeal statute
has to be ascertained upon consideration of all the relevant provisions of the ,...
re-enacted enactment. This is no longer res integra. ..,.,
66. Mr. Nariman, however, would submit that in terms of Section 6(1)(c)
of the General Clauses Act which corresponds to Section 17(J)(c) of the
G
English Interpretation Act, 1978 not only a vested or accrued right but also
an inchoate right is protected. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed
on a decision of the Court of Appeal on Chief Adjudication Officer and Anr.
_\
v. Maguire, [1999] 2 ALL ER 859, where it is stated:

H
""
UDA! SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. [S.B. SINHA. J.) 739
"The relevant overpayment there had been made before the legislation A
changed but the fact of such overpayment was not discovered until
afterwards. The Secretary of State sought to contend that s.53 was
retrospective. In holding not, the House of Lords decided rather that
s.119 could still be operated to effect recovery (albeit with greater
difficulty for the Secretary of State) in respect of pre-repeal B
overpayments. Having cited s.16(1)(c) (of Interpretation Act 1978.)
Lord Woolf said this:

"Inchoate rights and obligations and liabilities are covered by (c).
This was established by Free Lanka Insurance Co Ltd v. Ranasinghe,
(I 964) AC 54 I. In that case the Privy Council had no difficulty in C
construing the Ceylon Interpretation Ordinance 1900 as including an
inchoate or contingent right and the same approach should be adopted
to the interpretation of'right,' 'obligation,' or 'liability' in s.16 of the
Act of 1978. The section clearly contemplates that there will be
situations where an investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may D
have to be instituted before the right or liability can be enforced and
this supports this approach."

67. Whether such a right is protected or not must be considered having
regard to the statute in question. If a right has crystallized before the repealing
Act comes into force, by reason of repeal of the earlier statute indisputably E
the right crystallized cannot be taken away.

68. Section 17(1) of the Interpretation Act, 1978 provided that where
an Act repeals a previous enactment and substitutes new provisions for the
enactment repealed, the repealed enactment remains in force until the
substituted provisions come into force. F
69. We are not beset with such a situation in the instant case. The right
of the petitioners to practise in the field of veterinary practice has expressly
been taken away. When such a right has been taken away upon laying down
an essential qualification therefor which the petitioners admittedly do not G
possess, the right of the petitioners to continue to practice despite the fact
that they do not fulfill the criteria laid down under the Parliamentary Ac.t or
the Central Act would not survive.

70. The expression "unless a different intention appears" contained in
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, thus, in this case, would be clearly H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A attracted. A right whether inchoate or accrued or acquired right can be held A
to be prot1:cted provided the right survives. If the right itself does not survive
and either expressly or by necessary implication it stands abrogated, the
question of applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not
arese at all. [See Bansidhar and Ors. v. State of Rajas than. [ 1989] 2 SCC 557
B and Thyssen Stahlunion Gmbh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.. [ 1999] 9 SCC
334]

71. For the reasons aforementioned, we respectfully agree with the view
taken by th~ High Court. ,...
...(
C 72. The submission of Mr. Lalit that Parliament while enacting other
laws laying down the qualifications for practice in some other profession
allowed the practitioners with lesser qualification to continue is not of much
consequence. Parliament in its wisdom while enacting some other statutes
might have done so. But it may be that in a case of this nature where with
the passage of time new diseases have been discovered and new techniques
D and tools are to be put in place for treating the animals (even wild animals),
a higher qualification laid down for combating the current problem cannot per
se be held to be unreasonable only because persons with lesser qualifications
are not allowed to continue to practice or enter into the services of the
government or semi-government organizations.
E
73. A faint submission has been made that whereas Section 19 of the
1953 Act or Section 23 of the 1971 Act provided ,for a mandatory obligation
on the part of the practitioners to get themselves registered so as to enable
them to obtain appointment in the services of the State or other local authorities
F or public corporations, no such restriction was prescribed for general medical
practitioners.

74. On the first flush, the submission appears to be attractive. The
liability of a person to get himself registered on the State register, in our
opinion, is imperative so as to enable the State to control the profession as
G such. We have seen hereinbefore that the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 confers the responsibility of providing veterinary
services on the Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities. Nothing has been
-
shown to us that any person could start practice in veterinary services J -
without getting himself registered. Hence, in our opinion, the answer to the
H said question appears to be in the negative inasmuch as a legislative act must
UDAI SINGH DAGAR v. U.0.1. (S.B. SINHA, J.] 741
be read with the regulations framed. A subordinate legislation, as is well A
known, when validly framed, becomes a part of the Act.
r
75. Regulation 3 provides for the mode and manner in which registration
of a medical practitioner has to be carried out. The 1973 Act was enacted for
registration of veterinary practitioners. Section 23 must be read in that context.
The Act also does not provide for carrying on any profession as such. It is B
difficult to assume that practice in veterinary service would be wholly
unregulated despite the preamble of the Act.

76. Regulation 3 encompasses within its fold both the categories, viz.,
practitioners as also the employees. c
77. The necessity to maintain a register cannot be minimized unless the
name of a person is placed on the register. It may not be possible for the State
or even the Veterinary Council to keep a watch on the performance of the said
persons and in particular when a complaint is made against him. Only when
a person's name is placed on the register, the question of striking off his name D
.. therefrom in the event of commission of a professional or other misconduct
would arise. A person who is in service, in the event of his committing any
misconduct, may also be held to be subject to disciplinary action.

78. For the aforementioned purpose, we are of the opinion that the E
statute being vague, a purposive construction thereto must be given.

79. In Francis Bennion's Statutory Interpretation, purposive construction
has been described in the following manner:

"A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect F
to the legislative purpose by-

(a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning
is in accordance with the legislative purpose (in this Code called a
purposive-and-literal construction), or

(b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in G
accordance with the legislative purpose (in the Code called a purposive-
and-strained construction)."

\ [See also Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental
Action Group and Ors., [2006) 3 SCC 434 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. H
v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 4 SCALE 36)
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A 80. We cannot also accept the submission of Mr. Nariman that, as for
certain reasons with which we are not at present concerned, a large number
of certificate holders could not file application for getting themselves registered,
they have derived an accrued right to have their names entered in the register.
For the purpose of registration, the conditions laid down under Regulation
3 were to be fulfilled. A person. thus. is not entitled to be registered by the
B State Council or the Central Council only because he holds an educational
qualification. Several other factors ar~ required to be taken into consideration
therefor. The right to practice or right to be in service or right to obtain an
ap;:iointment in government or semi-government organization would, thus, be
dependant upon a person's name being registered therefor in the State or
C Central register, as the case may be. So long their names are not on the
register, the question of their acquiring any vested or accrued right does not
arise. In a case of this nature, the court cannot confer a right to practice on
the certificate holders despite the fact that their names do not find place in
the register maintained by the State Council or the Central Council.

D 81. Despite our aforementioned findings, we are of the opinion that
those who are in service of the State or the semi-government or local self
government organizations must be held to have a right to continue in service.
The employees of the State enjoy a status. A person who enjoys a status can
..
be deprived therefrom only in accordance with law having regard to the
E nature of right conferred on him under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
The law in this behalf, in our opinion, is clear. Their nature of duty may
change but they would be otherwise entitled to continue in service. The State
of Maharashtra or for that matter even the other States have issued notification
(s) in terms of clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. Minor veterinary
services, therefore, having been specified in terms of the said notification,
F those certificate holders who are in the services of the State or the other semi-
government organizations are entitled to continue in service, subject of course
to, carrying out their duties strictly in terms of the notification issued by the ,,...
State under clause (b) of Section 30 of the Central Act. In the event, any State .,.
has not issued such a notification, they may do so.

G 82. For the reasons aforementioned, the writ petition and the civil appeal
are dismissed, subject to the aforementioned observations and directions. No -
costs.

A.K.T. Writ Petition & Civil Appeal dismissed.

H