Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.
This petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation has been filed by one Prabhakar Mishra seeking following reliefs:
1.This Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to issue the writ of quo warranto and declare the appointment of opposite party no. 1 who at present holds the post of Director of Drugs Ayurvedic/Unani of U.P. ab initio void.
2.Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may issue under the facts and circumstances this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
The relief aforesaid is not only wholly misconceived but is also not clear. In fact, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Paras Ram Gupta clarified that he seeks a declaration that the initial appointment of opposite party no. 1 on the post of Drug Inspector is bad and, therefore, he cannot hold the superior/promotional post of Director of Drugs, Ayurvedic/Unani.
Sri Sandeep Dixit appearing for opposite party no. 1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as 'PIL' calling it as an abuse of the process of the Court and also harassment to opposite party no. 1.
He has submitted that the petitioner Prabhakar Mishra has not established his credentials for bringing the cause to the Court in the nature of PIL and that, in fact, this is a proxy petition, which has been got filed by another person for serving his own cause. To buttress his submission, he draws the attention of the Court to an earlier writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 1270 (SB) of 2011 filed by Avadhesh Kumar Mishra himself, in which one Dr. Sukh Lal Ram was impleaded as opposite party no. 3.
This writ petition was filed by Avadhesh Kumar Mishra, the present opposite party no. 1, against the State of U.P. and Dr. Sukh Lal Ram, raising a grievance that Dr. Sukh Lal Ram, though is not eligible and qualified for being given the officiating charge of Assistant Drug Controller, is being allowed to discharge the duties of the said post, whereas the petitioner, namely, Avadesh Kumar Mishra was eligible and available for handling the said post. In the said writ petition, an objection was raised about the qualification of the petitioner, Avadhesh Kumar Mishra, which was not accepted by the Court and ultimately the writ petition was allowed, quashing the appointment of Dr. Sukh Lal Ram, as officiating Assistant Drug Controller, with a further direction that the State Government shall take immediate steps for filling up the post on regular basis and in the meantime, the charge of Assistant Drug Controller shall be given to a person, who is otherwise eligible for the same, as per rules. This order was passed on 20.7.2011.
In the aforesaid writ petition, a specific plea was taken in the counter affidavit by Dr. Sukh Lal Ram in Para 9 that Avadhesh Kumar Mishra was only having the degree of B. Pharma and to the best knowledge of the deponent, namely, Dr. Sukh Lal Ram, Avadhesh Kumar Misra did that course from Gujarat Ayurved University, Jaamnagar, whereas the degree of B. Pharma of Gujarat Ayurved University, Jaamnagar is not recognised by Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.
This plea was also not accepted and the writ petition was allowed, as observed above.
Not being satisfied with the judgement and order aforesaid, Dr. Sukh Lal Ram preferred a review petition and in the review petition, he annexed a document, namely, information supplied in Form-C under R.T.I. Act to his wife Smt. Raj Kumari dated 5.9.2011. This document, in fact, is the basis of the present writ petition also, wherein it has been annexed as Annexure-1.
In the review petition, same plea was raised that the course was not approved by the Central Council of Indian Medicine. The review petition was dismissed on 8.11.2011.
We are informed by Sri Sandeep Dixit that Dr. Sukh Lal Ram, despite his appointment order having been quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1270 (MB) of 2011, is still being allowed to function as Assistant Drug Controller.
It is for the State to consider as to how a person, whose appointment stands quashed, is being allowed to hold the said office and discharge the functions of Assistant Drug Controller.
This petition has been filed by the present petitioner, Prabhakar Mishra, again challenging the initial appointment of opposite party no. 1 on the post of Drug Inspector on the same very grounds, which were raised by Dr. Sukh Lal Ram in his counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition and also in the review petition.
It appears that the petitioner has brought this petition only to serve the cause of a person who is not before the Court, namely, Dr. Sukh Lal Ram.
PIL cannot be allowed to be filed nor it can be entertained, if it is tainted with ulterior motives or is filed with a view to settle personal grudge.
On merits also, we find that the petition has no legs to stand and knowing fully well that the plea aforesaid stands rejected in the earlier writ petition, this writ petition has been filed, which is nothing but a clear abuse of the process of the Court.
Even in the information obtained under R.T.I. Act, a document which has been relied upon by the petitioner himself, it has been specifically informed that the University has approved B. Pharma degree by its Statute-156 and all the degrees have been awarded according to this Statute.
Once the degree is recognised by the University and and is awarded in accordance with its Statute, it cannot be said that the degree obtained by opposite party no. 1, in any way, is not sufficient to hold him qualified for the post in question.
This is also evident from the fact that the qualifications required for appointment on the post of Drug Inspector are given in Rule 167 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, framed under the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The aforesaid rule reads as under:
"167. Qualification of Inspector - A person who is appointed an Inspector under Section 33-G shall be a person who -
(a). has the qualifications laid down under Rule 49 and shall have undergone practical training in the manufacture of Ayurvedic (including Siddha) or Unani drug, as the case may be; or
(b) has a degree in Ayurvedic or Siddha or Unani system or a degree in Ayurvedic Pharmacy, as the case may be, conferred by a University or a State Government or a Statutory Faculty, Council of Board of Indian System of Medicine, recognised by the Central Government or the State Government for this purpose."
Sub-clause (b) of the aforesaid rule only requires a degree in Ayurvedic or Siddha or a degree in Ayurvedic Pharmacy, as the case may be, conferred by a University or a State Government or a Statutory Faculty, Council or Board of Indian System of Medicine recognised by the Central Government or the State Government for this purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party no. 1 was not having requisite educational qualifications.
This is also fortified by the fact that on 1.2.75, the Government of India issued a circular regarding appointment of Drug Inspectors and inclusion of B. Pharma (Ayurved) in Rule 157 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. This very circular related to the same degree of B. Pharma awarded by the Gujarat Ayurveda University, Jamnagar, which provided that the aforesaid degree may be included as a recognised qualification for appointment under Rule 167 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The said circular is being taken on record.
Non-registration of the course with the Central Council of Indian Medicine, would only not allow the person to practice but there would be no bar in seeking appointment, unless any such condition of registration reflects from the rules applicable or is so advertised.
It is not the case of the petitioner that recognition of the course with the Central Council of Indian Medicine was an essential qualification for applying to the post of Drug Inspector, when the petitioner had applied and was selected by U.P. Public Service Commission.
Even today, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate such a requirement.
It is also to be taken note of, that the opposite party no. 1 was appointed as Drug Inspector in the year 1983 on his applying for the post in pursuance of the advertisement issued by U.P. Public Service Commission.
The candidature of the opposite party no. 1 was duly considered by Public Service Commission and it having been found that he was possessed of the essential qualifications, he was selected. The selection made by the Public Service Commission in the year 1983 is sought to be quashed in the year 2011, that too by means of a writ in the nature of PIL.
Not only that the opposite party no. 1 was possessed of the requisite qualifications as provided under Rule 167 of the Rules of 1945, but he was selected by the Public Service Commission as far back as in the year 1983. His appointment cannot be challenged at such a belated stage, that too by a person who has not come with clean hands and has simply abused the process of the Court.
The educational qualifications of the opposite party no. 1 having become the subject matter of consideration in the earlier writ petition and also in the review petition, where the aforesaid plea was rejected, filing of the present writ petition in the nature of PIL and pressing it on the backdrop of a document which was obtained by the wife of Dr. Sukh Lal Ram, opposite party no. 3 in the earlier writ petition, which was also filed alongwith the review petition, despite the fact that the review petition was dismissed thereafter, persuades us to impose cost upon the petitioner.
Under the circumstances, the present writ petition filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, having no merit, is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 20,000/-. The cost shall be deposited within a period of one month, failing which it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue, by issuing a recovery certificate by the Registrar of this Court. The cost so deposited shall be sent to the Mediation Centre of this Court.
Dated: 22.12.2011 MFA