When a statute prescribes a specific procedure for an appointment, it must be followed strictly; the State Government cannot assume the role of the appointing authority if the power is vested in a Council, even when assigning additional charge.

Order on Board

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 on the post of Registrar of Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council on the grounds pleaded in the writ petition and sought following reliefs:-

“10.1] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs/ direction/directions, in the nature of quo warranto to quash the impugned appointment order dated 14.03.2024 of respondent no. 4 (Annexure-P/1).

10.2] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs/ direction/directions, in the nature of quo warranto and direct the respondent state to restrain the respondent no. 4 to continue on the post of Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council.

10.3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council (hereinafter it shall be referred to as “Council”) is established vide order dated 09.10.2003 under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short “Act of 1948”). Councils are governed by Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Aushad Nirman Shala Parishad Niyam, 1978 (for short “Rules of 1978”) framed under the Act of 1948. Registrar is defined under Rule 2 ( +) of the Rules of 1978. Registrar means “Registrar” appointed under Section 26 of the Act of 1948. Referring to Section 26 of the Act of 1948, it is argued that it is for the Council to appoint a Registrar with previous sanction of State Govt. He further referred to Rule 96 of the Rules of 1978 to submit that Registrar should be the full time salary paid officer of the Council and further made submissions based on Rule 96 (2), that ordinarily, Registrar should be the retired Medical Officer of State Govt. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 who has been appointed as Registrar pursuant to order dated 14th March 2024 (Annexure P-1) is in contravention of the Act of 1948 and Rules of 1978. Respondent No.4 is not holding the post of Class-II Officer. He is an employee of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur and posted as Store Keeper. Appointment of petitioner was not even made by the proceeding initiated by Council but order of appointment of respondent No.4 is issued by the State Govt. Provision under Section 26 of the Act of 1948 provides that appointment of Registrar is to be made by Council and not by the State Govt. and therefore order Annexure P-1 is without jurisdiction and it is to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relies upon the decision in case of Narayan Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (WPS No.2491 of 2014, decided on 20th August 2014). It is also submitted that decision in the case of Narayan Sharma (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents vehemently oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that appointment of respondent No.4 is not as Registrar but he has been given additional charge of post of Registrar. They also contended that petitioner with ill-intention has filed this writ petition because pursuant to initiative taken by respondent No.4, initially