PEMANAND SHETTY K Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking for a direction in the nature of quo warranto ousting the second respondent from the post of Drug controller after quashing the notification Annexure-A, dated 12-6-2004.

(2.) PETITIONER states that the second respondent has been appointed in terms of Annexure-A notification dated 12-6-2003. According to petition averments, the second respondent is ineligible to be appointed as a Drug controller as he does not have the minimum qualification to hold the post of Drug Controller as specified under Rule 50-A of the Drugs and cosmetics Rules, 1945.

(3.) NOTICE was issued and respondents have entered appearance. Respondent states that in the light of the proceedings initiated by lokayuktha, the Drugs Control Department has to necessarily appoint respondent 2 in the larger public interest. According to objection statement, there was no suitable person to be promoted to the post of drug Controller from the cadre of Additional Drugs Controller in view of the various proceedings and that therefore the Government thought it fit to appoint the second respondent as Drug Controller. According to the respondents, the Government appointed on deputation the second respondent, a medical doctor and an Indian Police Service Officer of the karnataka Cadre with administrative capacity with a post-graduate diploma in public policy and management from IIM, Bangalore with specialisation in Health Policy. Respondents say that he has the requisite qualification in terms of Rule 50-A of the Rules. The respondents further submit that the second respondent is a graduate in medicine from the University of Calicut and while doing MBBS he had studied both Pharmacology and Microbiology. After passing MBBS in 1989, he worked in the Institute of Maternity and Child Health, Calicut medical College and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi as an intern and as a Junior Resident during the period 1990 to 1992. He has also enforced various provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 among other legislative enactments and that therefore he has both qualification and eligibility in terms of Rule 50-A of the Rules. They support Annexure-A.