The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the State Pharmacy Council to cancel the registration of a Pharmacist based on irregular registration in another State, and the applicability of the Education Regulations under Section 32(2) of the Pharmacy Act.

S.N. Jha, CJ.-This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.

2. The appellant had filed the writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4309/2005, for quashing the decision of the Rajasthan State Pharmacy Council (hereinafter called `the Rajasthan Council) dated 12.04.2005 cancelling the registration of the appellant as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (in short "the Act"), and for a direction upon the Pharmacy Council not to remove his name from the Register of Pharmacists in the State.

3. The case of the appellant, briefly, is that after passing the secondary examination in 1986, he worked in Todi Medicals, a medical store at Sikar from October 1991 to March 1997. He wished to practise pharmacy as a profession, but he came to know that the registration had closed in the State of Rajasthan way back in September, 1978 itself on preparation of the "first register" under Section 30 of the Act. He "migrated" to Sikkim where the first register was still under preparation and registration on the basis of experience had not been closed. He took up job in a medical store at Gangtok in August 2001. On the basis of experience in course of the said employment the appellant applied for and was registered as a Pharmacist with the Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Sikkim Council") vide Registration No. 0258/SKP/2001 on 012.2001 in terms of Section 31(d) of the Act. In the words of appellant- "the purpose of his sojourn to Sikkim having been achieved" -he returned to Kherli in Rajasthan in the beginning of January 2002. He then applied for registration with the Rajasthan State Pharmacy Council on the basis of his registration with the Sikkim Council. Reference was made to the Sikkim and by letter dated 14.05.2002 the Sikkim Council confirmed that the appellant had been registered with it as a Pharmacist and it had no objection to his registration as a Pharmacist on transfer in the State of Rajasthan. On 04.06.2002 he was registered by the Rajasthan Council under Section 32(2) of the Act vide Registration No. 16864. On 22.07.2004 notice was issued by the Pharmacy Council to the appellant informing him that the Enquiry Committee constituted by the Government of Rajasthan had found his registration with the Sikkim Council irregular, being not in accordance with the provisions of Section 31(d) of the Act. The Enquiry Committee in fact found his stay in Sikkim itself doubtful. The said registration with the Sikkim Council being the basis of registration in the State of Rajasthan, the Enquiry Committee had recommended to the Rajasthan Council to remove the names of all such persons from the Register of Pharmacists. The appellant was asked to appear before the Executive Committee on 02.08.2004 to explain why his name should not be removed from the Register of Pharmacists of Rajasthan under Section 36 of the Act. The appellant chose not to appear before the Executive Committee on the date fixed or on any subsequent date. The Executive Committee decided to cancel his registration and remove his name from the Register of Pharmacists. The decision was approved by the Full Council on 16.03.2005. On 12.04.2005 he was informed about cancellation of registration and directed to surrender his certificate of registration on or before 16.06.2005 as required under Section 36(5) of the Act failing which he would be liable to be prosecuted under Section 43 of the Act.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed the facts of the case and the appellants recalcitrance to participate in the hearing before the Executive Committee of the Pharmacy Council. Observing that he had been given opportunity of hearing which he did not avail of and that the appellant could not be registered with the Sikkim Council on the basis of experience in the State of Rajasthan, the learned Single Judge held that the appellants registration had rightly been cancelled. The l