Honble MADAN, J.–Rajasthan Pharmacy Council (appellant) by filing this special appeal has assailed the judgment dated 8.12.2000 of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the Council was dismissed upholding the Government order 22.1.2000 withdrawing its permission granted to S.C. Pant to work as Registrar of the Council.

(2). Admitted facts are that appellant Rajasthan Pharmacy Council (for short, ``Council) was constituted by State Government by order dated 11.08.1978 as a body corporate. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 26 of the Pharmacy Council Act, 1948 (for brevity ``the Act) appointed Mr. Mohd. Ishaq as first Registrar of the Council for first four years of constitution with its pleasure, and accordingly Mr. Ishaq continued as first Registrar from August 1978 to August, 1982 in addition to his own substantive appointment as Administrative Officer in Mobile Surgical Unit of the Medical & Officer in Mobile Surgical Unit of the Medical & Health Department of the State Government. Thereafter though the State Govt. appointed Shri Mukesh Agrawal as Registrar of the Council in place of Mr. Ishaq vide order dated 10.01.1983 but that order was challenged in writ petition wherein direction was allegedly issued to convene a meeting of the Executive of the Council so as to appoint Registrar, and pursuant to that direction the Executive Committee in its meeting on 14.04.1983 resolved to appoint Shri B.M. Sharma on officiating basis till regularly appointed candidate was made available and thereby Shri Mukesh Agrawal ceased to function as Registrar. However, pursuant to advertisement Mr.S.C. Pant was regularly appointed by order dated 15.02.1986 as Registrar but on part time basis. It is pertinent to mention that admittedly during his appointment as Registrar on part time basis Shri Pant was substantive Officer of the State Government having been working as Senior Lecturer and duly promoted as Reader in Public Health Training Institute and that being so, he has been continuing to discharge his duties as such in addition to his assignment as Registrar on part time basis. Similarly it is not in dispute rather admitted by the Council that Shri Pant continued to discharge all functions and duties of his regular employment with the State Government firstly as Senior Lecturer and subsequently or promotion as Reader with the Public Health Training Institute during office hours from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily in addition to his part time assignment as Registrar of the Council during its office hours from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. till 1.4.1999 when it got changed to 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. i.e. full day office hours. However, it is the case of the Council that on 28.3.2000 the respondent No.2 telephonically directed Shri Pant to relinquish post of Registrar and this telephonic communication was conveyed by Shri Pant to the Council. Ultimately, a communication was sent by the State Government on 1.4.2000 directing Shri Pant to relinquish the post of Registrar pursuant to order dated 22.1.2000 whereby original order dt. 10.2.1986 lending services of Shri Pant to work as Registrar of the Council was revoked, against which the council filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge who after show cause notice and upon reply thereto besides rejoinder, heard both the parties at admission stage and dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment. Hence, this special appeal.

(3). Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire material on record and considered rival contentions, we find no merit in this special appeal. Our conclusions are thus.

(4). As regard the objection of the State Government as to the necessary party, learned counsel for the council relying upon the decisions in Uditnarayan Singh vs. Board of Revenue (1) and MV Ravindranath vs. Union of India (2) contended that as per dictum of law laid down in catena of decisions of the Apex Court, it is settled law that necessary party is the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document