Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 862 (JHR)

Sujit Kumar Mukhopadhyay v. State of Jharkhand

2009-06-22

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : 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. 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 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.