ORDER
Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Petitioners claim that they are all diploma holders in what is known as Vocational Curriculum for +2 Basic Heath workers (Male).It is the case of the petitioners that the Government of Karnataka is conducting such vocational courses and the petitioners have undergone such course and they have been conferred with such diploma. The object of such course is to train candidates who can create awareness in health and hygienic conditions in rural areas for taking preventive measures to prevent the spread of communicable diseases and generally to improve the living standard of people by educating about the health and hygienic aspects. It is claimed that the petitioners are also trained for treating minor ailments, recognition of medical emergencies in remote rural areas, where even basic medical facilities are not available or there do not exist any regular medical centres for attending to the minor health conditions of such people in such remote areas and are capable of doing it and a host of other activities wherein otherwise regular medical practitioners could have attended to and are not available. The course gives them exposure to subjects like Anatomy and Physiology, Behavioral Science, nutrition etc, as also the subjects like elements of microbiology, health and vital statistics, control of communicable diseases, public health administration, first aid and emergency care, health education, general foundation course, environmental sanitation, basic medicine and pharmacology, maternal child health and family welfare, developing the ability to recognize and treat minor ailments etc. etc., that they are also trained to recognise the common drugs and their use in treating various ailments and after completing such course they have been given job oriented pre-University Diploma and are given designation as Multi Purpose Basic Health Worker (Male).
2. The present grievance of the petitioners in these Writ Petitions is that in view of acquiring such qualifications petitioners who are unemployed and have represented to the respondents requesting them that they should be recognised such as medical practitioners entitled to practice in rural areas or they should be given suitable job or they should be provided with registration certificate which can enable them to practice like holders of MBBS degree or even holder of diploma in medicine and that they should be recognised on par with such medical practitioners for the purpose of appointing them to man Rural Health Centres, are not favoured with any reply from the respondents. Respondents having not either heeded to their demands or not even having responded to their request, petitioners have approached this Court praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 20.10.2001 said to have been given to the respondents and for passing appropriate orders or take suitable decision on the same.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has made a passionate submission that the petitioners have acquired skills on par with any medical practitioners, that they also have exposure to patients at hospitals and have undergone training for two years and as such it is only proper for the Government to either provide them with suitable job opportunities by engaging them in Rural Health Centres or permit them to practice their skills by recognising them as Rural Health Practitioners at Primary Health Centres.
4. The request of the petitioners in substance is one demanding for recognition to permit them to practice medicines in rural areas in a limited way.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even persons who had acquired degrees without the basic medical education and who had acquired such certificate or knowledge have been permitted to practice as Registered Medical Practitioners under the Mysore Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Registration and Medical Practitioners Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961 and as such petitioners also should be treated on par with persons holding medical degree or medical diploma and lack of a degree or a diploma in medicine should not be held against the petitioners for permitting them to practice as registered medical practitioners in rural areas.
6. The question of permitting any one to practice as a registered medical practitioner is a matter that is governed by the provisions of the Mysore Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Registration and Medical Practitioners Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961. It is also governed by the Indian Medical Council Act and the Registered Medical Practitioners Act also. It is only a person holding a degree recognised as indicated in these enactments who is permitted to practice medicine. Admittedly petitioners are not such persons.
7. With regard to the request for issuance of a writ of mandamus it is obvious that the endeavour of the petitioners is to seek concession or favourable orders from the respondents. It is not as though the petitioners are demanding the performance of any legal obligation on the part of the respondents with the corresponding right in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners' request which is in the form of representation is not backed by any statutory provision. This Court cannot issue a Writ in the nature mandamus to direct the respondents to consider any representation that might have made by the petitioners. A writ can be issued only if the petitioners have a legal right in their favour and the respondents are under a legal duty to comply with the request.
That is not the situation here. No merit in the petitions. Writ petitions are dismissed.