IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 3752 of 2008
...
Sujit Kumar Mukhopadhyay ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Sanjay Kr. Dwivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : - J.C. to Sr. S.C. I.
For the Interveners : - Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, Advocate. [in I.A. No. 381 of 2009]
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. [in I.A. No. 1080 of 2009]
...
3/22.06.2009
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kr. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
J.C. to Sr. S.C. I for the Respondent-State, Mr. Abhay Kr. Mishra, learned counsel
for the Intervener in I.A. No. 381 of 2009 and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel
for the Intervener in I.A. No. 1080 of 2009.
2. Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for an order quashing
the Notification dated-28.06.2008, whereby he was transferred to the post of Drug
Inspector from the post of Regional Licensing Authority. Further prayer has been
made for issuance of an order commanding upon the Respondents to post the
petitioner as Regional Licensing Authority and not to confine this in one single
post of State Drug Controller-cum-Chief Licensing Authority.
3. It appears that the controversy in respect of the appointment to the
post of Drug Inspector and the Licensing Authority was earlier raised before the
Patna High Court. After hearing the parties, the Patna High Court vide its order
dated 22.06.2005, passed in L.P.A. No. 311 of 2005 (Annexure-4), directed the
State Government to post the Drug Inspectors and the Licensing Authorities
separately on the basis of their qualification and experience and other criteria as is
determined by the State Government. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the State of
Bihar had created and sanctioned posts of the Licensing Authority and requisite
number of posts for the Drug Inspectors.
4. It is informed by the learned counsel for the Respondent-State that
after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, as many as 11 posts of Drug
Inspectors fell vacant in the State of Jharkhand and against such vacant posts, 10
posts have been filled up by appointment on the posts of the Drug Inspectors,
which was duly notified and one post of Licensing Authority has been created by
converting one post of Drug Inspector and against which one person has now
been appointed.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, would submit
that pursuant to a subsequent judgment, passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6366
of 2005 on 08.03.2006, a direction was given to the State Government to make
regular appointment to the post of the Licensing Authority of all the areas within a
period of four months from the date of the order.
2 [W.P. (S) No. 3752 of 2008]
But in compliance to the aforesaid directions, the State
Government has only made an ad hoc arrangement for the post of the Licensing
Authorities in four different areas and by a subsequent Notification, the petitioner
has been called upon to function as the Licensing Authority for Chaibasa area.
6. The petitioner’s grievance is that he should have been appointed on
permanent basis on the post of Licensing Authority and not by way of an ad-hoc
appointment. Learned counsel further invites attention to the documents annexed
to the interlocutory application filed by the intervener, which is an information
obtained from the State Government through its concerned department on the
query made by the intervener and which reveals that the State Government has
approved the sanctioning of posts of the Licensing Authority and the same has
already been forwarded to the Finance Department for its approval and as and
when the Finance Department sanctions and grants its approval, the posts shall be
filled up by way of regular appointments.
7. The grievance of the Intervener, Om Prakash Mussadi who claims
to be one of the senior most Drug Inspector, is that after having been posted as the
Licensing Authority, he has again been returned to the basic post of Drug
Inspector and the chances of his promotion to the post of Licensing Authority is
adversely affected.
The grievance of the intervener is more or less identical to
the grievance of the petitioner in as much as, both of them have claimed that the
State Government has not complied with the directions of this Court, passed in
W.P. (S) No. 6366 of 2005. Both the petitioner as well as the intervener have
sought to indicate that the post of Drug Inspector and that of the Licensing
Authority are separate on account of the fact that the qualifications for
appointment on the post of Drug Inspector as laid down in Rule 49 of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Rule, 1945 are different from the qualifications as laid down for
the post of the licensing authority as laid down in Rule 49 A of the aforesaid Act
and regular posts of Regional Licensing Authorities have to be separately created
by the State Government even as per the orders passed by this Court in the
aforementioned writ application.
8. It appears from the counter affidavit as also from the statements contained in
the intervener’s petition vide I.A. No. 381 of 2009 that the State Government
has already initiated action for creating and sanctioning requisite number of
posts of Regional Licensing Authorities and the same has been forwarded to
the Finance Department of the State Government for due sanction. The
petitioner and the intervener appear to have been asked to function as the
Regional Licensing Authority and Drug Inspector respectively only by way of
3 [W.P. (S) No. 3752 of 2008]
an ad hoc arrangement till the final sanction of the posts of Regional Licensing
Authority are confirmed.
Considering the aforesaid facts, both the petitioner and the
intervener should await final decision of the State Government in the matter of
creating the posts of the Regional Licensing Authority and posting of the
appropriate officers on the aforesaid posts.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this writ
application is disposed of with a direction to the Respondent-State Government to
expedite the process of creating the sanctioned posts of Regional Licensing
Authority and appointment of officers to such posts and complete the same
preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order. The Respondents shall also take into consideration the issues
raised by the petitioner and the intervener.
10. I.A. No. 381 of 2009 filed by the intervener is disposed of
accordingly.
11. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondent-State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK