YADAV, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Rajasthan Pharmacy Council through its president, Sri Ramesh Ojha, which is a body corporate within the meaning of Section 22 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire or hold property both moveable and immovable and can sue and can be sued by the said name. It is prayed in the present petition that the order impugned dated 22. 01. 2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, passed by the State Government, whereby the services of Sri Subhash Chandra Pant, Registrar, Rajasthan Pharmacy Council, has been withdrawn with a direction to the council to appoint a new Registrar in accordance with law, be quashed.
(2.) ALTHOUGH the present writ petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I purpose to decide it on merits, at admission stage. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record. The controversy involved in the present writ petition can be effectively adjudicated without delineating the facts averred in the pleadings of the parties as the question for determination in the present case, gravitates and centres around the interpretation of Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, read with Sections 14 and 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Sections 14 and 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, can be used as catalysis to interprete section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The aforesaid point is driven home from perusal of Annexure- 3 to the writ petition, which reveals that the State Government had given its previous sanction in exercise of its power under Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 to the petitioner, Rajasthan Pharmacy Council to appoint Sri Subhash Chandra Pant as its Registrar. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after giving previous sanction for appointment of Sri Subhash Chandra Pant, the State Government had become functus officio and it has no jurisdiction to withdraw its previous sanction by its impugned order dated 22. 1. 2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition, with a direction to the petitioner to appoint a new Registrar in accordance with law.
(3.) IN support of his aforesaid arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which provides that whereby any Central Act or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having for the time being power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any other authority in exercise of the power. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from reading of Section 26 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, it is revealed that appointment of Registrar of the State Council is within the control of the petitioner, therefore, the dismissal or removal or any order adverse to the appointment of Sri Subhash Chandra Pant, as Registrar of Rajasthan Pharmacy Council, is to be exercised only by the corporate body, not by the State Government. The aforesaid arguments, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are refuted by Sri M. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General, with equal vehemence. He also invited my attention towards Annexure-6, to the writ petition, whereby the State Government has withdrawn its previous sanction of appointment of Sri Subhash Chandra Pant, as Registrar of the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council. It is submitted by Sri M. Rafiq, that under Section 14 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it is provided that whereby any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that indisputably Sri Subhash Chandra Pant, is a permanent employee of the State Government and he was accorded sanction by the State Government to work as Registrar of Rajasthan Pharmacy Council, on part-time basis. According to Sri M. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General, the administrative exigency where the services of, Sri Subhash Chandra Pant, who is permanent employee of State, can be utilised effectively, is within the executive domain of the State Government. It is further submitted that impugned order Annexure-6, to the writ petition, is innocuously worded and it does not cast stigma to Sri Pant, hence, it does not require interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. I am of the view that there is substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General, Sri M. Rafiq. For the reasons given hereinbelow, the petitioner is not entitled to obtain the relief prayed for, in the instant writ petition. ;