17. Dentists (Amendment) Bill - Page 195

178 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES

Dr. Ambedkar : No figures.

Mr. Speaker : If the registers are incomplete, how can he give the correct figures ?

Dr. Ambedkar : There is no register and who knows who is a dentist and who not.

Mr. Speaker : The question is :

“In clause 3, in the proposed amendment to sub-section (3) of section 46 and sub-section (1) of section 49 of the Dentists Act,

1948, for ‘three years’, substitute ‘two years and six months’.”

The motion was negatived.

Shri Sidhva : Is it laid down in the Act ?

Dr. Ambedkar : That is why we have said three or two years throughout. Otherwise we would have prescribed different dates for different States. It is necessary and desirable to preserve the principle of uniformity. The House will see that it affects eligibility for holding posts. It cannot be said that a person is eligible for holding a post in a particular State and not eligible in another State, simply because the State has not been in a position to prepare the register. Therefore, I think as it is desirable to preserve the principle I cannot accept the amendment of Mr. Sidhva After all the difference is only a matter of six months.

Shri Sidhva : I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker : The question is :

“That clause 3 stand part of the Bill.”

The motion was adopted.