Appointment Violated Statutory Provisions, Court Directs Fresh Proceedings per Pharmacy Act, 1948
In a significant decision, the Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the appointment of a Registrar to the Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council made directly by the State Government, deeming it unsustainable in law. The judgment, delivered by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, emphasized adherence to statutory provisions under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Aushad Nirman Shala Parishad Niyam, 1978, which dictate that the Council, with the prior sanction of the State Government, is the competent authority for such appointments.
The case, titled "Dr. Rakesh Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh," revolved around a petition challenging the assignment of Registrar duties to Respondent No.4 by the State Government. The petitioner, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, represented by Advocates Mr. Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Manas Bajpai, argued that the appointment violated Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and Rule 96 of the 1978 Rules, which require that the Registrar be a full-time salaried officer of the Council, typically a retired Medical Officer of the State Government.
The State Government's direct involvement in assigning the Registrar's charge without a resolution from the Council was contested as an overreach of authority. The court referenced the legal principle that statutory procedures must be strictly followed, citing past judgments such as "Nazir Ahmad v. The King Emperor" to support its stance.
Despite objections from the State's legal representatives, including Additional Advocate General Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, the court maintained that the appointment was invalid. The court dismissed contentions that the petitioner filed the writ with ill intent, focusing instead on the statutory breach.
The judgment calls for the initiation of fresh proceedings for the Registrar's appointment in compliance with the statutory framework, ensuring the Council's autonomy as intended by the Pharmacy Act.
Bottom Line:
Appointment of Registrar by the State Government in contravention of statutory provisions under Pharmacy Act, 1948 and Rules of 1978 is unsustainable in law. The statute prescribes that the Council, with prior sanction of the State Government, is the competent authority for such appointments.
Statutory provision(s): Pharmacy Act, 1948 Section 26, Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Aushad Nirman Shala Parishad Niyam, 1978 Rule 96, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
Dr. Rakesh Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2867366
