RAJENDRA PRASAD MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein claims to be a public worker, and vitally interested in the maintenance of public health and supply of unadulterated food and drug in the State of Bihar. He is disturbed by the fact that rules and norms, which have been laid down for effective implementation of the policy to prevent supply of adulterated and substandard food and drug, are not being followed by the State of Bihar, particularly on account of the fact that the work of analysing the food items and drugs sold in the State of Bihar in consumers is not done by persons duly qualified to do so and or posts are lying vacant. In any event, the indifference shown by the State authorities in making appointment to the posts when they fall vacant, and entrusting the same person with the responsibilities of several posts, results in ineffective administration of the policy. He has, therefore, prayed that respondent No. 2, who is one such person holding several posts, even though not qualified to hold some of them, should be called upon by a writ of suo warranto to disclose the authority under which he holds so many posts, some of them being posts for which he does not possess the necessary qualification.

(2.) According to the writ petitioner, respondent No. 2 holds the following posts : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_347_BLJ2_1995Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that respondent No 2 is holding all these posts and responsibilities simultaneously with the result that he is not in a position to render any service whatsoever in any of the capacities which he holds The petitioner states that respondent No. 2 is a very resourceful person and manipulates things in such a manner that he has a stranglehold over the entire machinery in the State with regard to food and drug analysis. It is the case of the petitioner that one post of Madical Officer was surrendered with a view to create the post of senior Chemist in the Department. The post of Senior Chemist was promotional post for a Assistant Chemical Analyst. An advertisement was issued for the appointment to the post of Senior Chemist in May 1966, but surreptitiously an advertisement was issued in July 1966 for the appointment of Senior Chemist on temporary basis Even though respondent No 2 did not possess the requisite Post Graduate qualification in Food Analysis, he was selected for appointment to the post of Senior Chemist in temporary capacity. One Mr. Alam, who was at the relevant time holding the post of Assistant Chemical Analyst, should have been appointed as Senior Chemist, but his case was not considered. He resigned in protest. Thereafter respondent No 2 managed to get himself appointed as Deputy Chemical Analyst in the Food and Drug Laboratory, Agamkuan. This was done without following the procedure for appointment to a gazetted post. Thereafter, he was again appointed as Deputy Director, Food again without following the legal procedure. In a like manner, he was also appointed as Joint Food Controller.