[ad_1]
Delhi High Court – Orders
Dr. Sharada Ghatak vs Tirath Ram Shah Hospital & Ors on 2 April, 2025
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~69
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4139/2025
DR. SHARADA GHATAK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Khowaja Siddiqui, Mr. Jay
Singh, Ms. Ashwini Kumar and
Mr. Uday Arora, Advocates.
versus
TIRATH RAM SHAH HOSPITAL & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Amrita Mishra and Mr. Vishal
Sharma, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Latika Choudhary, Panel
Counsel for GNCTD with Ms.
Aliza Alam, Advocate for R-2 and
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 02.04.2025
CM APPL. 19141/2025 (for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4139/2025 and CM APPL. 19140/2025 (for ex-parte ad-
interim stay)
1. Issue notice. Ms. Amrita Mishra, learned counsel, accepts notice on
behalf of respondent No. 1. Ms. Latika Choudhary, learned Panel
Counsel, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, accepts
notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. The petitioner obtained an MBBS degree from the College of
Health Sciences, University of Sokoto, Nigeria, and an MD degree in
W.P.(C) 4139/2025 Page 1 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2025 at 22:38:15
Radiology from the Medical University Sofia, Republic of Bulgaria. He
was registered with the Delhi Medical Council in the year 2011 after
passing the screening test for foreign medical graduates conducted by the
Medical Council of India in 2004.
3. The petitioner assails a communication of his employer/respondent
No. 1, dated 20.03.2025, which states that a direction has been received
from the authority under the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 [hereinafter, “the
Act”], which states that he is not eligible to perform ultrasound as he has
not applied for the 3rd/last phase of Competency Based Test [“CBT”].
4. It is the petitioner’s contention that he holds a recognised medical
qualification and has more than two years of experience in genetic
science in the fields of sex selection and pre-natal diagnostic techniques,
which satisfies the definition of “Medical Geneticist” under Section 2(g)
of the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the requirement of CBT does
not apply to the petitioner.
5. Three competency based tests are held under the Act, and the
present writ petition concerns the third of those tests. The contention of
the petitioner with regard to the applicability of the CBT requirement to a
person of his qualification has already been raised by the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No. 15841/2023, which was filed at the time of second CBT. By
order dated 07.03.2024, the said writ petition was tagged alongwith
W.P.(C) No. 6247/2022 [Sonological Society of India vs. Union of India
& Ors.], in which also a similar question of interpretation of Section 2(g)
of the Act has been raised. The question has been formulated thus in an
order dated 19.04.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 6247/2022:
W.P.(C) 4139/2025 Page 2 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2025 at 22:38:15
“4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned notification would not be applicable to the members of the
petitioner society who form a separate class and would be covered
under the definition of ‘medical geneticist’ in Section 2(g) of the Act.
He further submits that these Doctors would be covered under Rule 3
(3) (1) (c) of The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex-Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Rules’) but are being wrongly presumed to be falling
within the ambit of the Rule 3 (3) (1) (b). He contends that the persons
falling in the latter category i.e. 3 (3) (1) (b) of the Rules are
sonologist simpliciter who do not have the requisite two years
experience as prescribed under Section 2 (g) of the Act and cannot
therefore be treated as ‘medical geneticist’.
5. Issue notice. Ms. Nidhi Raman and Mr. Karn Bhardwaj accept
notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 respectively. They pray
for and are granted, three weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. While
filing its counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 will clearly set
out as to why the MBBS doctors who have two years of experience
either in the field of sex selection or in the field of pre-natal
diagnostics technique would not fall within the ambit of ‘medical
geneticist’ as defined under 2 (g) of the Act. Rejoinder thereto, if any,
be filed within one week thereafter.
6. It is, however, made clear that the rights of the members of the
petitioner society will remain subject to the outcome of the present
writ petition.”
6. The said writ petition, as well as the writ petition filed by the
petitioner himself, remain pending before this Court, and are listed next
on 10.07.2025.
7. It is evident that in the petitioner’s challenge to the imposition of
CBT requirement, no interim orders have been passed and in the writ
petition filed by the Sonological Society of India, it has been directed that
the rights of the members of the petitioner-Society will be subject to the
outcome of the writ petition.
W.P.(C) 4139/2025 Page 3 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2025 at 22:38:15
8. As the present case concerns a similar argument, I am of the view
that the petitioner’s rights may also be made subject to the result of the
writ petition, but no further interim orders ought to be granted at this
stage.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to an order
dated 07.02.2020, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)
3058/2020, which arose from a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court
dated 17.12.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 612/2019. By the said order, the
Supreme Court granted interim relief against penal action being taken
against a doctor, who has been in practice for not less than 15 years in
case he does not take the proposed examination. However, as the
judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court is not before this Court, and I
am informed that the appeal remains pending before the Supreme Court,
these aspects can only be considered after affidavits are filed.
10. The respondents are directed to file counter affidavits within four
weeks. Rejoinders thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
11. List this writ petition, along with W.P.(C) No.15841/2023, on
10.07.2025.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 2, 2025
uk/JM/
W.P.(C) 4139/2025 Page 4 of 4
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/04/2025 at 22:38:15
[ad_2]
Source link