CHINMAY KUMAR MAJHI NILAMANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ applications are directed against the same order passed by opposite party No. 1 permitting opposite party No. 5 to open Day and Night Medicine Store within the area of Community Health Centre at Baragaon. They have also prayed for a direction to make fresh selection after issuing fresh advertisement. Since questions raised in all the writ applications are same and the impugned order is the same, all the writ applications were heard together and shall be governed by this common Judgment.

(2.) PURSUANT to the decision of the Government, the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh, instructed the concerned Medical Officers to publish notices in the notice -board inviting applications from applicants for establishing Day and Night Medicine shops at different places including within the compound of the Community Health Centre, Baragaon within the district of Sundergarh, Subsequently, the State Government framed and issued a 'revised policy relating to establishment of such 24 -Hours Medicine Shops at different places, which was circulated by letter dated 28 -4 -1998 (Annexure -2 in O. J. C. 4434/2000). Opposite party No. 5 was selected for establishing the Day & Night Medicine Shop within the area of Community Health Centre. Baragaon as per the decision of the State Government communicated vide letter dated 7 -1 -2000 (annexed as Annexure -3 of O. J. C. No. 4434/2000). The said selection/appointment is sought to be challenged in all the three writ applications mainly on the allegation that the procedure contemplated in Annexure -2 regarding issuance of notice and publication of the advertisement had not been followed, nor any decision had been taken by the Director, Health Services, to establish the Shop. It is also alleged that opposite party No. 3 was selected at the behest of the then Health Minister in an arbitrary manner. The main contention is that due to non -publication of the notice in the newspapers as well as in different places contemplated in Annexure -2, the petitioners could not submit their applications.

(3.) IT is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the policy decision under Annexure -2 was in supersession of all previous circulars and as such the guidelines indicated in Annexure -2 should have been followed. It is submitted that as per paragraph -2 of the Policy decision in Annexure -2, the proposal for opening of medicine shops within the campus of Community Health Centres (C. H. C.) and Upgraded Public Health Centres (U. P. H. C.) has to be approved by the Director of Health. Services and in the present case, without any such approval, the decision had been taken to establish the medicine shop. Even though no counter has been filed on behalf of the State Government and in the absence of any assertion contra, it should be taken that no such approval had been taken, this contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. The aforesaid policy decision was circulated by letter dated 28 -4 -1998. In the present case, as per the existing policy decision, the proposal had been mooted and necessary notices had been published and as such, the requirement under Annexure -2 that the proposal for opening of such shops should be finalised by the Director is of no relevance in the present case.