K.S.RATHORE, J. - (1.) Since, all these writ petitions are involving same question of law and directed against the impugned order dated 12.4.2005 by which the petitioners were informed about the rejection of the application for registration as a pharmacist, these writ petitions are decided by one common order. The facts of the case of Lalit Kumar Jain (SI3 Civil Writ Petition No. 4307/2005) are taken as a leading case.
(2.) In the letter dated 12.4.2005 the petitioner was informed that he was registered as a pharmacist with the counsel at S. No. 16843 on the basis of being pharmacist of Sikkim State. On receipt of complaints about irregularities being done in the registration of pharmacist by Sikkim State Pharmacy Tribunal, the Government of Rajasthan had constituted an enquiry committee and on the basis of findings of this committee petitioner's registration as a pharmacist done in the Sikkim has been found to be not having been done as per rules because as per the report of the enquiry committee the prescribed experience should have been obtained in Sikkim State but the petitioner was registered by Sikkim Tribunal on the basis of petitioner's experience obtained in Rajasthan.
(3.) The State Government on the basis of observations/findings of the enquiry committee has asked Rajasthan Pharmacy Council to remove names of all such irregularly registered persons from the register of pharmacists of Rajasthan State under Section 36 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.;