BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.P.(MD)No.6882 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.5158 & 5159 of 2025 D.Muthu ... Petitioner /Vs./

1.Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.Department of Personnel and Training, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi.

3.Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), Through its Director-General, FDA Bhawan, New Delhi.

4.Dr.Rajeev Singh Raghuvanshi, Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), CDSCO, New Delhi.

5.The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shajahan Road, New Delhi - 110 069.

6.Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC), Through the under Secretary (EO-SM.II), North Block, New Delhi. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of quo warranto, directing the respondents to call the records to quash and set aside the impugned order (i.e.) the Office Order issued under F.No.A.11020/04/2024-DR-Part(1), dated 28th February 2025, by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Health and Family Welfare as arbitrary and unconstitutional and to vacate the office.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Saravanan Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Raghaev For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Quo Warranto directing the respondents to call for, and quash Office Order dated 28.02.2025 issued by the first respondent/Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

2. As a sequitur, the petitioner seeks a direction that the Office of the Drug Controller (India), Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) be vacated to make way for a fresh appointment per applicable Rules.

3. Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for Mr.R.Raghaev for the petitioner claims that the present writ petition is instituted in public interest. The petitioner claims to be a distinguished scholar in Bio Sciences and has set out his academic credentials in the writ affidavit. There is no objection to the credentials of the writ petitioner to have raised this particular cause of action.

4. The petitioner submits that the age of retiree of a Central Government Employee by superannuation is 60 years and an extension is provided for only in terms of DO Letter No.28/19/2000-EO (SM-II) dated 10.07.2000, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The extension is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, after careful scrutiny of the integrity of the candidate and after the appropriate authority assigns reasons for such extension.

5. The petitioner assails the appointment of Dr.Rajeev Singh Raghuvanshi, who had been appointed as Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) on 01.02.2023. Vide an advertisement dated 29.07.2024, applications were sought for from eligible candidates in anticipation of the superannuation of Dr.Raghuvanshi.

6. Though 18 applicants had applied for the post, the appointment of Dr.Raghuvanshi was extended on contract for a period of one year vide Office Order dated 28.02.2025 thus abandoning the process of fresh recruitment.

7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the extension granted with effect from 01.03.2025 and says that it is contrary to the Statute and Rules as well as the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in Office Memorandum No.26012/62002-ESTT(A)

dated 09.12.2002.

8. According to the petitioner, the above guidelines prescribe the circumstances when extension in service could be granted and in this case, no compelling circumstance have made out. The petitioner also alleges that the extension of service of