Orissa HC: Rule 3(3) of PC & PNDT Rules Does Not Bar a Radiologist From Practising USG Across Two Districts
The Orissa High Court set aside a Bargarh district order blocking a VIMSAR radiologist from performing ultrasound at an Attabira private clinic, finding no cross-district prohibition in Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules.
The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack has ruled that Rule 3(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (“PC & PNDT Rules”) does not contain any express prohibition against a qualified medical practitioner conducting ultrasonography in clinics situated in two different districts. Justice B.P. Routray, sitting singly, set aside an order dated 6 April 2026 issued by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh, which had prevented Dr. Jagabandhu Barik—an Assistant Professor in Radio-Diagnosis at V.S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Burla (VIMSAR)—from performing USG at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira in Bargarh district. The court directed Opposite Party No. 2 to grant the required permission, subject to no other legal impediment.
The Dispute Before the High Court
Dr. Barik is employed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Radio-Diagnosis at VIMSAR, Burla, which falls in Sambalpur district. He applied to conduct radio-diagnosis at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, a private hospital in the neighbouring Bargarh district. The Superintendent of VIMSAR issued a No Objection Certificate on 16 December 2025, stating the institution had no objection to his performing ultrasound at Rajaram Health Care beyond his duty hours.
Despite that clearance from his employer, the District Advisory Committee (DAC) of Bargarh, in its proceedings dated 24 March 2026, decided to disallow Dr. Barik. The Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh formalised the refusal by an order dated 6 April 2026, invoking Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules. That order was challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in W.P.(C) No. 14988 of 2026.
What Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules Says
Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules reads:
“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 State, represented by Mr. S.K. Jee, Additional Government Advocate, argued that this provision limits a government doctor to practising USG only within the district where he works. Because Dr. Barik works in Sambalpur, the DAC of Bargarh contended he could not be permitted to extend his practice to a clinic in Bargarh district. The AGA also argued that while the rule allows registration with two hospitals in one district, it nowhere permits practice across two different districts, particularly for a government doctor.
How Justice Routray Reasoned
Justice Routray examined the text of Rule 3(3) and found a clear gap between what the rule says and what the Bargarh authorities read into it. The rule prescribes a ceiling of two clinics within a district—it does not, on its face, say anything about clinics in different districts.
The court reasoned that the phrase “within a district” in Rule 3(3) exists because the statutory framework under the PC & PNDT Act assigns supervisory authority to a District Advisory Committee, and each DAC operates for its own district alone. The wording therefore reflects the administrative structure, not a prohibition on cross-district practice. Extending the rule to prohibit practice in two clinics in two different districts would read in a restriction that the Legislature did not enact.
Justice Routray held that “the prescription of maximum two clinics in one district cannot be extended to interpret two clinics in two different districts.” The plain interpretation of Rule 3(3), read alongside the object of the Act, does not contradict permitting a practitioner to conduct USG in two clinics across two districts. Such a reading would, in the court's view, be inconsistent with the object of the legislation.
The court also addressed the No Objection Certificate issued by VIMSAR's Superintendent. When the employer itself raised no objection to Dr. Barik conducting USG at Attabira beyond duty hours, the DAC of Bargarh had no valid basis to refuse registration by invoking a provision that does not prohibit cross-district practice. The court noted the geographical context: Sambalpur and Bargarh are adjacent districts and the distance between Burla and Attabira is approximately 25 kilometres, making the practical concern underlying the refusal difficult to sustain.
Justice Routray concluded that the Bargarh authorities had debarred Dr. Barik on a misinterpretation of Rule 3(3) and that no justification existed, particularly given that Dr. Barik is an admittedly qualified Radiologist.
Outcome
By judgment dated 6 August 2026, Justice B.P. Routray set aside the impugned order dated 6 April 2026 issued by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh (Annexure-3). Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to grant the required permission to Dr. Jagabandhu Barik to conduct ultrasonography at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, if no other legal impediment exists. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.