IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13293 of 2009 Dr.Virendra Kumar Lal & Ors Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors 3/ 16/08/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are stated to have obtained the degree of Vaidya Visharad and Ayurveda Ratna after 1967 from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and registered with the Bihar Council of Ayurvedic & Unani Medicines. They are aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2007 by which their degree/certificates and subsequent registration has been cancelled by a public notice dated 3.8.2007. The issue involved in the present case stands fully covered by a judgement of the Supreme Court in (2010) 12 SCC 609 (Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar v. Union of India) and analogous cases holding at paragraph-51 as follows:- “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: (I) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is neither a university/deemed university nor an educational board. (II) It is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. (III) It is not an educational institution imparting education in any subject inasmuch as ayurveda or any other branch of medical field. 2 (IV) No school/college imparting education in any subject is affiliated to it. Nor Hindi Sahitya Sammelan is affiliated to any university/board. (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 105 in Schedule II to the 1970 Act. (VI) Hindi Sahitya Sammelan only conducts examinations without verifying as to whether the candidate has some elementary/basic education or has attended classes in ayurveda in any recognised college. (VII) After commencement of the 1970 Act, a person not possessing the qualifications prescribed in Schedules II, III and IV to the 1970 Act is not entitled to practise. (VIII) Mere inclusion of the name of a person in the State Register maintained under the State Act is not enough for making him eligible to practise. (IX) The right to practise 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. (X) Restriction on practise without possessing the requisite qualifications prescribed in Schedules II, III and IV to the 1970 Act is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)