AFR

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Sudeep Johri and Mr. J.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 and Mr. Shayam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4.

2. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 03.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 773 of 2025 (Dr. Rakesh Gupta vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No. 4 herein came to be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts and suffers from patent errors apparent on the face of record. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the settled scope of a writ of quo warranto and has erroneously interfered with a purely temporary administrative arrangement, despite there being no substantive appointment of the appellant on the post of Registrar.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that the respondent No. 4 had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 14.03.2024 whereby the appellant, who is substantively serving on the post of Pharmacist at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, was merely entrusted with additional charge of the post of Registrar of respondent No.3/Council as a stop-gap administrative arrangement. The writ petition sought issuance of a writ of quo warranto alleging violation of Rule 96 of the Pharmacy Council Rules, 1978 (for short, ‘Rules of 1978’). However, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was never appointed on the substantive or permanent post of Registrar and, therefore, the very foundation for issuance of a writ of quo warranto was absent. He also submits that Rule 96(1) of the Rules of 1978 contemplates appointment of a full-time Registrar who is to be paid salary by the Council, while Rule 96(2) of the Rules of 1978 prescribes the eligibility criteria for regular appointment to the said post. The said provisions operate only in relation to substantive appointment and have no application to a temporary arrangement or entrustment of additional charge made in administrative exigency. The appellant was merely assigned additional charge till finalization of the process relating to amendment of rules and regular appointment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge committed manifest error in treating such temporary arrangement as a regular statutory appointment.

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel, appearing for the appellant that both the State Government as well as the appellant had specifically pleaded before the learned Single Judge that respondent No.4 / writ petitioner is a politically motivated person who has been continuously filing litigations against the Council with oblique motives. It was specifically pointed out that respondent No. 4 had earlier been removed from the post of nominated member of the Council under Section 25(3) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (for short, ‘Act of 1948’) and, therefore, the writ petition was filed only to settle personal scores and gain undue publicity. Despite such specific pleadings, the learned Single Judge failed to examine the maintainability and bona fides of the writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that respondent No. 4 had earlier submitted a complaint dated 30.12.2022 against the previous Registrar by relying upon a resolution of the Council suggesting that the Registrar should possess qualification in Pharmacy. Pursuant thereto, the competent authority constituted a sub-committee for prescribing eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Registrar. The said committee, in its recommendations dated 17.11.2022 and 03.01