SAILENDRA KUMAR MEHER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order of the Government of Orissa in the Health and Family Welfare Department dated 12-5-1997 selecting Gayatri Devi Pansari (opposite party No. 5) to open a 24 hours Medical Store in the campus of Sub-Divisional Hospital, Patnagarh is under challenge. Petitioner was one of the applicants and has assailed the relection of opposite party No. 5 on the ground that the same was illegal on various grounds; primarily because she was not eligible and/or qualified and extraneous considerations have weighed while making the selection. The State of Orissa and its functionaries have supported the selection, as also the selected person (opposite party No. 5). The impugned order dated 12-5-1997 is Annexure 5 to the writ application.

(2.) Background facts necessary for disposal of the writ application are essentially as follows :Procedure for opening of medical stores in the campus of Medical College Hospitals/District Headquarters Hospitals and Hospitals equivalent to them and sub-divisional hospitals of the State were formulated by the State at different points of time. So far as the case at hand is concerned, the guidelines applicable are those contained in the G.O. No. 17782-H, dated 13-5-1993 read with Order No. 19665/H, dated 26-5-1993 issued by the State Government. The criteria for selection were as follows, as per the first G.O.

(3.) Petitioner's case is that though his case was sponsored by the Chief District Medical Officer (in short, 'CDMO'), the Director of Health Services, the Secretary, Health and the Minister, Health without any rhyme or reason and without taking into consideration the criteria fixed, passed orders selecting opp. party No. 5. Specific reference is made to Clause 5(ii) dealing with eligibility criteria. It is stated that opposite party No. 5 was not a registered Pharmacist either with a degree or diploma in Pharmacy, and therefore, she was not eligible to be considered.The stand of opposite parties on the other hand is that the opp. party No. 3 was a registered Pharmacist and in any event a person who can engage a Pharmacist can be considered, whether he himself is a Pharmacist or not. Further opp. party No. 5 being a lady applicant preference was given to her. According to them the scope for judicial review of administrative action is very limited, and there being nothing illicit in the selection, there is no scope for judicial review of the order passed by the competent authority.