SAMAVEDAM APPALACHARI SRINIVASAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ applications seek grant of writ of certiorari quashing notification dated 22-6-1973 (Annexure-6) appointing Sri U. S. Murty (opposite party 2) as Assistant Drugs Controller on ad hoc basis, notification dated 16-6-75 (Annexure-13) allowing opposite party 2 to continue in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller, notification dated 17-6-75 (Annexure-14) appointing the said opposite party as Drugs Inspector with retrospective effect from 14-5-71 and notification dated 31-3-1977 (Annexure-16)'confirming opposite party 2 in the post of Assistant Drugs Controller, Planning Training and Research with effect from 23-6-75.

(2.) The petitioners in these writ applications contend that they are Drugs Inspectors in the employment of the State of Orissa under the Health and Family Planning Department. They joined service as hereunder; Sri K. B. Rup (O. J. C. 617/77). 25-10-65; Sri S. A. Srinivasan (O. J. C.616/77) 21-7-67; Sri S. Satyanarayan (O. J. C. 620/77) 31-8-65; Sri P. S. P. Rao (O. J. C. 619/77) 6-12-68; Sri B. K. Mohanty (O. J. C. 621/77) 31-12-69; Sri P. N. Singh Deo (0. J. C. 622/77) 1-7-70; Sri C. Ramaiah (O. J. C. 618/77) 31-12-70. They submit that the opposite party 2 was appointed as pharmachist in the S. C. B. Medical College, Cuttack on 18-6-1958 and was appointed as Drugs Inspector on 30-12-1960. With effect from 4-1-1964 he was appointed as a lecturer in pharmacy and posted in the Medical College at Burla. While continuing as lecturer in Pharmacy, opposite party 2 made a representation and the Government thereon ordered on 8-1-1971 that the opposite party 2 should be confirmed in the post of Drugs Inspector and retain his original seniority in the cadre of Drugs Inspectors and his placement should be above Sri A. K. Das Drugs Inspector. Direction for revision of the Gradation list was also given. On 9-1-1971 a notification was issued confirming opposite party 2 as Drugs Inspector with effect from 1-12-1962. This led to filing of writ application (O. J. C. 61 of 1971). This Court by judgment dated 1-9-1972 held that his appointment as Drugs Inspector came to an end with his appointment as a lecturer in Pharmacy. The decision of Government confirming him in the cadre of Drugs Inspectors and fixing his seniority above the incumbents in the cadre of Drugs Inspectors was unwarranted and unsustainable. Government order dated 8-1-1971 was quashed. During the pendency of the writ application, the Government had issued a notification on 3-5-1971 appointing the opposite party 2 as Drugs Inspector and opposite party 2 joined the post of Drugs Inspector with effect from 14-5-1971. A post of Assistant Drugs Controller, Planning, Training and Research in Class I was created and the qualifications, source and mode as prescribed are found in government letter dated 24-4-73 (Annexure-5). The requirement was :

(3.) Opposite parties in answer submit that the action of the Government has not been directed towards nullifying the decision. Opposite party 2 satisfied the requirement as laid down.in Annexure-5 and there was no ulterior motive or mala fides in the appointment of opposite party 2. They submit that the petitioners do not challenge the requirement as laid down in Annexure-5 for appointment as Assistant Drugs Controller. It is not correct, as contended by the petitioners that a Druges Inspector should have served for 12 years as Drugs Inspector to be eligible for promotion. What is necessary' is that on the date of consideration for promotion, a person should be a Drugs Inspector and should have twelve years experience in different fields of training, laboratory experience, research on plants and enforcement of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules. They urge that Annexure-14 regularised the service of opposite party 2 by appointing him as Drugs Inspector with effect from 14-5-71. In fact, by notification dated 3-5-1971, opposite party 2 had been appointed as Drugs Inspector; but the opposite party 2 served as Drugs Inspector with effect from 14-5-1971. No illegality was committed in wiping out the irregularity by way of regularisation. They further object to the competency of the writ applications and submit that the petitioners not being eligible as per the requirement in Annexure-5. the writ applications are not maintainable.