PC-PNDT Rules Don't Bar Doctor From Conducting Ultrasound At Clinics In Two Different Districts: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has held that a qualified Radiologist cannot be barred from conducting ultrasonography at two different clinics/medical establishments situated in two different districts, especially when his superior authorities in his permanent employment have issued a 'no-objection certificate' for his practice beyond official working hours. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 97]Clarifying the...
The Orissa High Court has held that a qualified Radiologist cannot be barred from conducting ultrasonography at two different clinics/medical establishments situated in two different districts, especially when his superior authorities in his permanent employment have issued a 'no-objection certificate' for his practice beyond official working hours. [2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 97]
Clarifying the true purport of Rule 3(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (the 'PCPNDT Rules'), the Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray held–
“The plain interpretation of the provisions in Rule 3(3) read with the object of the Act does not contradict to such provisions of the Act or intention of the Legislature by permitting the medical practitioner to conduct ultrasonography in two different clinics in two districts. There cannot be any hindrance in view of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act and Rules to debar the medical practitioner from conducting ultrasonography in two clinics situating in two different districts and such an interpretation would be not in consonance with the object of the Act.”
The petitioner, who is currently posted as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radio-Diagnosis in the VIMSAR, Burla, Sambalpur, sought permission for rendering his service at a private clinic situated in Attabira in the district of Bargarh. The Superintendent of VIMSAR issued a 'No Objection Certificate' authorising the petitioner to attend the said hospital beyond his duty hours.
Subsequently, the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh (CDMO) passed an order, under Rule 3(3) of the PCPNDT Rules, prohibiting the petitioner from working in private hospital. The said Rule states as follows–
“Each medical practitioner qualified under the Act to conduct ultrasonography in a genetic clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre shall be permitted to be registered with a maximum of two such clinics/centres within a district. The Consulting hours for such medical practitioner, shall clinic/centre.”
Impugning such prohibition order, the petitioner approached the High Court through this writ petition. The petitioner argued that when the Superintendent of his Hospital has expressly permitted him to work at the private clinic beyond his duty hours, the CDMO, Bargarh had no authority to debar him.
On the other hand, the State submitted that when the petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in VIMSAR, Burla in the district of Sambalpur, he cannot be permitted to perform USG at a Clinic situated at Attabira in the district of Bargarh. It was further contended that even though the Rules allow doctors to conduct USG at two different clinics in a particular district, it does not permit working in two different districts.
Justice Routray was of the opinion that the PCPNDT Rules do not explicitly prohibit Radiologists from practising in two different clinics situated in two different districts. The terms “within a district” have been employed to keep the doctors under the disciplinary and administrative superintendence of a District Advisory Committee (DAC). Since each district has one DAC, it cannot authorise a doctor to work under it when he is admittedly working under another DAC.
The Court further acceded to the contention of the petitioner that when the Superintendent of the VIMSAR, Burla has no objection to the petitioner working in Bargarh beyond his duty hours, the Bargarh DAC lacks authority to debar him. It also took note of the fact that the distance between the two workplaces is merely 25 KMs.
“Though the Petitioner has been refused to conduct ultrasonography at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira with purported reasons under Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules, but on analysis of the same no justification is seen on the part of the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh to apply the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules to reject the request of the Petitioner, particularly when the Petitioner is admittedly a qualified Radiologist.”
Accordingly, the impugned prohibition order was set aside and the petitioner was allowed to work in the said private clinic.
Case Title: Jagabandhu Barik v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 14988 of 2026
Date of Judgment: August 06, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. S.K. Jee, Addl. Government Advocate
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 97