Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1998 - HC - Indian LawsForbearance to practice as a Sonologist - Fundamental rights - primary contention of the respondent is that the petitioner is not a qualified sonologist - Effect of subsequent incorporate rules - name of petitioner was not endorsed in the centre's license - breach of provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner herein has been practicing as a Sonologist right from the year 1997. She had undergone the certificate course in diagnostic ultrasound imaging conducted by K.G.Hospital from 15.04.1996 to 11.05.1996. The respondent is therefore not justified in judging the writ petitioner's credentials on the strength of subsequently incorporated Rules. The impugned order is also rather non speaking. It only states that the petitioner has breached the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. This is rather a vague ground. Only in the counter, the issue as regard the writ petitioner's qualification has been brought up. It is well settled that an order will have to be tested on the basis of what it contains. An order cannot be improved by a subsequently filed counter affidavit. The petitioner's right to practise as a sonologist is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The order was passed way back on 08.06.2018. For the last several months, the writ petitioner could not practice as a Sonologist. It is true that when she was practicing in Krishna MRI and CT Scan Centre, her name was not endorsed in the centre's license, but then it is only a technical omission. Even assuming that there is a fault on the part of the writ petitioner she has suffered enough. The petitioner has made out a case for grant of relief. Petition allowed.
|