2012 Supreme(SC) 110

2012 (1) Supreme 760
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Rajendra Prasad Bagaria — Appellant
versus
Pharmacy Council of State of Rajasthan & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6895 of 2008
Decided on : 6-2-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
If the registration of the concerned pharmacist obtained from another state does not appear to be a justified registration, the transferee State Council can certainly decline to accept that registration for the purpose of carrying on the profession of a pharmacist in the transferee State, or cancel such registration once effected.

Headnote:The Pharmacy Act, 1948- Section 32-Cancellation of registration of appellant from Register of Pharmacists of Rajasthan -Writ Petition thereagainst-Dismissed by single judge-Writ Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-No dispute that appellant could not get enrolled as pharmacist in the State of Rajasthan-Appellant thereafter shifted to Sikkim where he worked for about two months in a medical store at Gangtok and got registered as a pharmacist with Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal - On the basis of registration from Sikkim, appellant got himself registered with the Pharmacy Council of the State of Rajasthan -The State Pharmacy Council which issues the certificate of registration ought to satisfy itself that person concerned did have atleast five years of experience, and which experience has obviously to be in that State for the State Council to assess it- In the instant case, appellant did not reside or carry business or profession of pharmacy or dispensing of drugs in Sikkim for more than five years- If any such method, as adopted by appellant is permitted, persons who claim to have experience of five years in one State, will go to another State for a few months only to obtain registration in that State, and thereafter seek transfer of that registration to their own state- The consequences of accepting appellant’s plea would mean that requirement of five years experience in the registering State would be defeated -No error found in the decision of respondent1 in canceling registration of appellant, nor the decision of Single Judge as well that of Division Bench approving the same-Appeal dismissed (Paras 15 to 17)

       Facts of the Case :

        A. The appellant herein in the instant case claims that after passing the Secondary School Examination in 1986, he worked in a Medical Store named as ‘Todi Medicals’ at Sikar in the state of Rajasthan from October 1991 to March 1997. It is his case that though on the basis of his experience, he was otherwise eligible to be enrolled as a pharmacist in Rajasthan, he could not get so enrolled since by the time he could apply, the registration of pharmacists in Rajasthan was closed. He claims that thereafter he shifted to Sikkim in August, 2001, where he worked for about two months in a medical store at Gangtok.

        B.On the basis of the certificate issued by his employer in Sikkim, he applied for registration as a pharmacist with the Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal and he was so registered over there. The purpose of his sojourn to Sikkim having been achieved, the appellant returned to State of Rajasthan . On the basis of this registration from Sikkim, he applied for his registration with the Pharmacy Council of the State of Rajasthan .

        C. It is the further case of the appellant that the Rajasthan Council made necessary enquiries with the Sikkim Tribunal, and thereafter enrolled him as a registered pharmacist . It however, appears that some complaints were received by the Government of Rajasthan with respect to functioning of a large number of in-eligible pharmacists in the State. Consequently, on being informed about the same, the Rajasthan Council decided to look into such cases. After enquiry ,Appellant was informed to surrender his certificate of registration by the Council .The appellant filed a Writ Petition to challenge this decision of the first respondent. The learned Single Judge however , dismissed the said Writ Petition by his judgment .Writ Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by High Court.

        D. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        A.There was no dispute that appellant could not get enrolled as pharmacist in the State of Rajasthan.Appellant thereafter shifted to Sikkim where he worked for about two months in a medical store at Gangtok and got registered as a pharmacist with Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal . On the basis of registration from Sikkim, appellant got himself registered with the Pharmacy Council of the State of Rajasthan .The State Pharmacy Council which issues the certificate of registration ought to satisfy itself that person concerned did have atleast five years of experience, and which experience has obviously to be in that State for the State Council to assess it.

        B. In the instant case, appellant did not reside or carry business or profession of pharmacy or dispensing of drugs in Sikkim for more than five years. If any such method, as adopted by appellant is permitted, persons who claim to have experience of five years in one State, will go to another State for a few months only to obtain registration in that State, and thereafter seek transfer of that registration to their own state. The consequences of accepting appellant’s plea would mean that transferee State would have to accept a person as a pharmacist when it did not have the opportunity to examine the material with respect to his experience of more than five years.The requirement of five years experience in the registering State would be defeated if any such methods are permitted.

        C. No error was found in the decision of respondent1 in canceling registration of appellant, nor the decision of Single Judge as well that of Division Bench approving the same. Appeal was dismissed.