1@1 ^ INTHE HIGH^OtaBffi^OFCHI-iAT'TISGARI-IAT •^BIl^RUR^:- •.•.' :/'7:'^::'...^ ,., 2B^^-.;. IN THE MAtTEftOF W.P . N0. PET1TIONER ,<?' y»/i ^^^^ ^ y"s&f^'> €^'. Dr. Abdul Quadeer, S/0 Late M.^, Qaiyum, Registrar, Chhattisgarh Pharmacy, Council Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^ RESPON0ENTS f^'^-fl ,-(:T:-^-^i'•-"•. 1) State 6f Chhattisgarh, Tlirough Secretary, Health, D.K. S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.<3.) 2^ Chhattisgarh PharmaGy ^•^oncil, through : RegistraF |KKStittfaBfisgarh Pharmacy ^uac^,Raipur.^ <i ^tf -3) Dr.f.R.Sahu Re(a($T^A^S^%[ '^^<^«^nSftn/;H^^ ft^faOU/t <<^ SJ PETITIONUNDERARTKSI-ES 2267227 OFrHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA®F<aR ISSUANCE O WRIT LN NATURE OF M^NDi^US, EERtlEQRiftRI AND/-OR'ANYOTHE:R.:WRn&i^?'ia6KENyCTU8E^;'^'^f'^^^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SiNGLEBENCH : HON'BLEMR.SATISHK.AGNIHOTRI.J. Petitioner Respondents WRLTPETmONN0.28S40F2005 Dr. Abdu! Quadeer versus Stete of Chhattisgarh and others Present : Mr. A.K.Yadav, counse! for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Gupta, Deputy Govemment Adyocate and Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Mr. Sameer Behar, counsel for respondent No.2. Mr. RajeevShrivastava, counse! for respondent No.3. ithORDER (Psssed on 9"' Day of January, 2007) , The petitroner, who was retired as Chief Medical Officer, was appointed as Registrar, Pharmacists' Registration Tribunal (hencefbrth 'the Registration Tribunal') on temporary basis by order dated 22-8-2003 (Annexure R-2/1). It was made clear that the petitioner would not be a Govemment servant, but, an employee ofthe Registration Tribuna!. Thereafter, by order dated 17-5-2005 (Annexure P-1), ons Dr. T.R.Sahu, retired Civil Surgeon was appointed in accordance with the provlsions of Section 26 Of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (henceforth 'the Act') and the services 6f the petitioner as Registrar on temporary basis came to an end. 2. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 17-6-2005 (Annexure P-1) in this pstition. The main ground of the challenge is that the petitioner, who is a retired Chief Medical Officer, possesses al the required qualification for being appointed as Rsgistrar of the Registration Tribuna! in accordance with the provisions of-Section 26 of the Act. It was further pointed out that there is no other reason, whereby the sen/ices of the petitioner was terminated and a new incumbent, i.e., respondent No.3 was appointed, who is aSso a retired Civil Surgeon. 3. It appears that the appointment of the peiitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 26 of the Act; firstly on the ground Shat it is contrary to the Constitutionai Scheme and secondly, the appointment was not made after inviting applications from the similarly situated qualified persons for being appolnted on the post of the Registrar. 4. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that even the appointment of respondent No.3 was not in accordance with the Constitutional Scheme. 5. Be that as it may, since the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the Constitutional Scheme, as such the petitioner has no right to the post and in view ofthe wsll settled princip!e of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in severai decisions recently, the petitioner has no right to reinstatement, regularisation or continuation in the service. , :'^l-"i4 costs. The petitlon is accordingly dismissed. No order as Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri -~ Judge Gopal ^