9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1998X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice was issued to the centre and finally action was also taken to seal the premises. 4. On 08.06.2018 when the petitioner was engaged in conducting ultrasound for the patient, there was one more inspection and the petitioner was questioned as to why the petitioner did not sign in Form-F of the case sheet. It was further noted that the petitioner's name was not endorsed in the scan license of Krishna MRI and Scan Centre. Following this, the respondent issued the impugned order dated 08.06.2018 forbearing the writ petitioner from carrying on with her work of Sonologist until further orders. The reason given in the said order is that the petitioner has breached the provisions of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore not justified in judging the writ petitioner's credentials on the strength of subsequently incorporated Rules. The petitioner in the typed set of papers has enclosed the certificate issued by the Head of the Department of Ultrasound Cancer Institute, Adyar, Chennai on 11.02.2004 certifying that the writ petitioner worked in the cancer institution as a Sonologist in the department of Ultrasound for five years from February, 1997 to February, 2002. 9. 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 petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
