DALER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notification issued by respondent No.1, vide which respondent No.2 has been appointed as Government Analyst without following the statutory provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a citizen of India and had served as Drug Controller of H.P. He filed the present writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation. He alleged that respondent No.1 appointed respondent No.2 as Government Analyst at CTL, Kandaghat in respect of biological and non-biological drugs and cosmetics for whole of the State of H.P., vide notification, dated 18.8.2006. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said notification issued by respondent No.1 since respondent No.2 was not a qualified person to be appointed as Government Analyst as per the provisions laid down under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner filed an application before respondent No.1 under Right to Information Act to supply the copies of qualifications of respondent No.2 and after obtaining the same and observing that respondent No.2 was not eligible to be appointed as Government Analyst under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, he filed the present writ petition for quashing of the said order.

(3.) THE submissions made by the petitioner in person were that the qualifications have been provided for a Drug Inspector under Section 20 of the Act and Rule 44 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 framed under the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that since respondent No.2 does not fulfill the requisite qualifications and does not have the necessary experience, he was not entitled to be appointed as Drug Inspector. Section 20 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 reads as under: