Allowed

Kerala State Pharmacy Council v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC18 Nov 2009WP(C)/2951/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala State Pharmacy Council sought to quash Government orders appointing a Registrar and challenged procedures to appoint another Registrar. The Court held that under Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the appointment powers lie with the State Council subject to prior Government sanction, not the Government unilaterally. Consequently, the Government orders quashing Council's initiatives w

What did the court decide?

Orders P4 and P5 were quashed; request to direct acceptance of Exhibit P6 was dismissed as impermissible.

Kerala State Pharmacy Council Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 2951 of 2009(B)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶8

KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,K.C. AJITH KUMAR, PHARMACY BHAVAN, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 682 035.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

---------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. M.K. UNNIKRISHNA PANICKER, DRUGS INSPECTOR (RETD), ANASWARA, T.C. 16/502, (1O) EVRA, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R2 SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN FOR R2 SRI.NINU M.DAS FOR R2 SMT.LEENA MURALI FOR R2 MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC NO.2951/2009

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 : COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.P-785/2005/KPC DATED 30/07/2005.

¶20

P2 : COPY OF NOTIFICATION, G.O.(P) NO.178/2008/H&FWD DATED 31/05/2008 ISSUED BY R1.

¶21

P3 : COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THE PETIITONER TO R1 DATED 09/12/2008.

¶22

P4 : COPY OF GO(Rt.)No.71/09/H&FWD DATED 05/01/2009 ISSUED BY R1.

¶23

P5 : COPY OF LETTER NO.995/09/H&FWD DATED 24/01/2009.

¶24

P6 : COPY OF GO(Rt.) No.71/09/H&FWD DATED 05/01/2009 OF THE PETITIONER COUNCIL.

¶25

P7 : COPY OF LETTER NO.33010/F1/H&FWD, DATED 26/09/2008 SEND BY R1 TO THE PETIITONER.

¶26

P8 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 17/11/2008 ISSUED BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 06/10/2008 GIVEN BY R2 TO R1.

¶27

P9 : COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER NO.25426/F1/08/H&FWD DATED 28/11/2008.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶29

R1(a) :	COPY OF G.O(P) NO.178/2008/H&FWD DATED 31/05/2008.
R1(b) :	COPY OF LETTER DATED 28/11/2008.
R1(c) :	COPY OF LETTER DATED 09/12/2008. //TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

WP(C) No.2951 of 2009

¶34

Dated, this the 18^th day of November, 2009

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner is the Kerala State Pharmacy Council constituted under the provisions of Chapter III of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.

¶37

In this writ petition, the prayer sought is to quash Exts.P4 & P5 and to direct the 1^st respondent to accept Ext.P6 and pass orders thereon.

¶38

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, by order dated 30/07/2005 Shri.B.Vasanthakumaran was appointed as Registrar of the petitioner. While he was continuing in Office, by Ext.R1(a), with effect from 31/05/2008, the age of retirement was reduced from 60 to 58. Shri.B.Vasanthakumaran attained 58 years on 15/07/2008, and therefore, the Government issued order dated 21/08/2008 directing the petitioner to relieve Shri.B.Vasanthakumaran.

¶39

It would appear that immediately thereafter the petitioner on its own, appointed Shri.D.Sunilkumar as its Registrar,

¶40

WP(C) No.2951/2009

¶41

-2-

¶42

and sought approval of the 1^st respondent. However, on the ground that the appointment was made without complying with the provisions of Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the approval was rejected.

¶43

In the meantime, the 2^nd respondent represented to the Government seeking appointment as Registrar of the petitioner, and that was also forwarded by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner. Thereafter, once again, enclosing his bio-data and requesting the petitioner to forward its views on appointing the 2^nd respondent as Registrar, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.R1(b). To this, the petitioner replied by Ext.P3 informing, inter alia, that the candidature of the 2^nd respondent will be considered.

¶44

Thereafter, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P4 dated 05/01/2009 according sanction to the petitioner to appoint 2^nd respondent as full time Registrar of the petitioner on contract basis. Again reiterating its competence, Ext.P5 dated 24/01/2009 was issued by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner submits that under Section 26 of the Act, the power to make appointment to the post of Registrar is to be exercised by the petitioner. According to them, they had already appointed Shri.V.R.Rajeev as Registrar and by

¶45

WP(C) No.2951/2009

¶46

-3-

¶47

Ext.P6 sought sanction of the 1^st respondent also.

¶48

In so far as the respondents are concerned, the case set up is that with the retirement of Shri.B.Vasanthakumaran, the petitioner did not make appointment of any Registrar and as the proposal made by the 1^st respondent for the appointment of the 2^nd respondent was pending consideration of the petitioner, Ext.P4 was issued according sanction for the appointment of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent also supports this contention and canvasses that he is fully qualified in terms of Rule 104 of the Kerala State Pharmacy Council Rules to be appointed as Registrar of the petitioner.

¶49

In so far as Exts.P4 & P5 are concerned, the only question is regarding the power of the Government to issue such orders to the petitioner. Appointment of Registrar is provided in Section 26 of the Act, which reads as under :-

¶50

“26. Staff, remuneration and allowances:- The State Council may, with the previous sanction of the State Government, - (a) appoint a Registrar who shall also act as Secretary and, if so decided by the State Council, Treasurer, of the State Council: (b) appoint such other officers and servants as may be required to enable the State Council to carry out its functions under this Act;

¶51

WP(C) No.2951/2009

¶52

-4-

¶53

(c) fix the salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of the Secretary and other officers and servants of the State Council;

¶54

(d) fix the rates of allowances payable to members of the State Council: Provided that for the first four years from the first constitution of the State Council, the Registrar shall be a person appointed by the State Government, who shall hold office during the pleasure of the State Government.”

¶55

A reading of the Section shows that it is for the State Council to appoint Registrar, which shall be done with the previous sanction of the Government. The proviso to the Section also says that the Government have the power to make appointment to the post of Registrar only for a period covering the first four years from the first constitution of the State Council. None has a case that the proviso is applicable. In this case, the petitioner has not appointed the 2^nd respondent nor has the petitioner sought the previous sanction of the 1^st respondent to appoint the 2^nd respondent. If that be so, in the absence of any appointment made by the petitioner or any sanction sought for by the petitioner, Exts.P4 & P5 cannot be sustained. Therefore, these orders are quashed.

¶56

The second prayer made in the writ petition is to direct

¶57

the 1^st respondent to accept Ext.P6 and accord sanction for the

¶58

WP(C) No.2951/2009

¶59

-5-

¶60

appointment of Shri.V.R.Rajeev. A reading of Ext.P6 itself show that it was after appointing Shri.V.R.Rajeev as Registrar that sanction of the 1^st respondent is sought for by the petitioner. It is clearly erroneous. As already seen Section 26 mandates previous sanction of the State Government for appointing anyone to the post of Registrar. Ext.P6 itself show that it was after making appointment to the post of Registrar of the petitioner, the petitioner was seeking ratification, of the 1^st respondent, for such appointment. This is clearly impermissible. Therefore, Ext.P6 being an illegal proceedings, this Court will not be justified in directing the 1^st respondent to accept Ext.P6 and accord previous sanction as contemplated under Section 26 of the Act.

¶61

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶62

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶63

Kerala State Pharmacy Council v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Pharmacy Council v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Damodaran Vs LIC

M.Balakrishnan Vs Commandant

P.Vasudevan Vs South Malabar Gramin Bank

M.Ramakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

S.P.Ajith Vs Kerala Legislature Secretariat