Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Appointment Of State Pharmacy Council Registrar, Says Govt Cannot Directly Appoint Under Pharmacy Act

The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the appointment of Ashwani Gurdekar as Registrar of the Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, holding that under Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the Registrar must be appointed by the State Pharmacy Council with the prior sanction of the State Government, and not directly by the Government.Justice Parth Prateem Sahu was hearing a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 (Ashwani Gurdekar) to the post of Registrar of the Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council.The petitioner submitted that the Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council was constituted by order dated 09.10.2003 under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. It was argued that the functioning of the Council is governed by the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Aushad Nirman Shala Parishad Niyam, 1978 framed under the 1948 Act.Referring to Rule 2 of the 1978 Rules, it was submitted that the term “Registrar” refers to the Registrar appointed under Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act. The petitioner contended that Section 26 clearly provides that the Registrar is to be appointed by the Council with the previous sanction of the State Government. The petitioner further submitted that the appointment of respondent No.4 pursuant to order dated 14 March 2024 was contrary to the statutory scheme. According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 was working as a Store Keeper at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur and did not hold the position of a Class-II Officer. It was also argued that the appointment was not made through any proceeding of the Council, but was issued directly by the State Government, which lacked the jurisdiction to make such an appointment. The petitioner additionally relied upon Rule 96 of the Rules of 1978 to submit that the Registrar must be a full-time salaried officer of the Council and that ordinarily the Registrar should be a retired Medical Officer of the State Government.Opposing the petition, the State submitted that respondent No.4 had not been appointed as Registrar but had only been given additional charge of the post. It was also argued that the writ petition had been filed with an ulterior motive, as the petitioner had earlier been removed from the membership of the Council pursuant to steps taken by respondent No.4.The High Court examined the scheme of Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, which deals with the staff of the State Pharmacy Council and the appointment of the Registrar. The Court held that the statutory provision envisages a two-stage process for appointment: first, the decision of the State Council to appoint a Registrar, and second, obtaining the prior sanction of the State Government.The Court observed that the role of the State Government under the provision is supervisory in nature and limited to granting sanction, and it cannot assume the role of the appointing authority. The Court further considered Rule 96 of the Rules of 1978, which provides that the Registrar shall be a full-time salaried officer of the Council and ordinarily should be a retired Medical Officer of the State Government. The Court noted that the Rules prescribe both the nature of the post and the eligibility requirements for appointment. The High Court held:“In the present case, perusal of the order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) reveals that respondent No.4 has been assigned the charge of the post of Registrar by the State Government. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to demonstrate that such assignment of charge was made pursuant to any resolution or decision of the Council. In absence of any such material, it is apparent that the State Government has directly issued the order assigning charge of the post of Registrar. It is a well-settled principle that when a statute prescribes that a particular act must be performed in a particular manner, the same must be done strictly in that manner and in no other way. Any deviation from the statutorily prescribed procedure renders the action legally unsustainable.”The Court held that the statutory power to appoint or make arrangements for the post of Registrar vests in the State Pharmacy Council itself. It observed that the State Government cannot assume the role of the appointing authority under the statutory scheme of Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Court also noted that respondent No.4 was working as a Store Keeper at Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur and was not shown to be holding a position fulfilling the requirements contemplated under Rule 96 of the Rules of 1978.Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dated 14.03.2024 appointing respondent No.4 to the post of Registrar of the Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council.Case Title: Dr. Rakesh Gupta v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Case Number: WPS No. 773 of 2025Appearance: Mr. Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Manas Bajpai appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay and Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan appeared for ...

Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Appointment Of State Pharmacy Council Registrar, Says Govt Cannot Directly Appoint Under Pharmacy Act

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes Appointment Of State Pharmacy Council Registrar, Says Govt Cannot Directly Appoint Under Pharmacy Act

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers