Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the state-respondent and Sri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.6.
The petitioner herein seeks for quashing of the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti whereby the charge of store, containing miscellaneous items of the Office, has been handed over to the petitioner whereas respondent no.6, who is Chief Pharmacist working in the office-in-question, has been given charge of the store containing drugs and surgical items.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the assignment of duties to the petitioner and respondent no.6 by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti is contrary to the Government Order dated 04.10.2001 which provides that though the maintenance of stock of drugs shall be in the charge of pharmacist, but other surgical equipments etc have to be kept under the supervision of the store keeper of clerical grade.
The contention is that the arrangement made by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti is also contrary to the directions issued by the respondent no.2 i.e. the Director, (Administration) Medical & Health Services, U.P. Lucknow on 31.10.2020. It is further contended that the assignment of duties to the respondent no.6 and the petitioner pursuant to the Government Order dated 22.01.1980 is illegal, inasmuch as, the subsequent Government Order dated 04.10.2001 providing charge of the store supervised by the pharmacist and store keeper had been completely ignored.
Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, however, states that in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the definition of 'drug' has been given in Section 3(b)(I) and (IV), wherein it has been defined as including medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals as also the devices intended for internal or external use in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals.
Annexure-'A' appended to the Medical Devices (Amendment) Rules, 2020 has been placed before the Court to submit that the X-ray machine, surgical dressings are the devices used during the surgery and treatment.
It is, thus, submitted that the charge of store, which is provided for storage of drugs and medical devices, has to be given to the pharmacist, in accordance with the Clause-'2' of the Government Order. As per own assertion of the petitioner, in accordance with the Clause-'3' of the said Government Order, the charge of store containing miscellaneous items has rightly been given to the petitioner in accordance with the Clause-'3' of the Government Order dated 04.10.2001.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 07.10.2020, which is subject matter of challenge in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has been given charge of the store which contains miscellaneous items. The duties assigned to the petitioner is of the post of store keeper in clerical cadre held by him. The respondent no.6, however, is working on the post of Chief Pharmacist.
Having perused the Government Order dated 04.10.2001, it is clear that the charge of drugs and other surgical items has rightly been given to the Chief Pharmacist, who is well-versed in the maintenance of the stock of drugs and other materials being used in the course of medical treatment. The challenge to the order impugned on the basis of Clause-'3' of the Government Order cannot be entertained.
Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to show any prejudice having been caused to him on account of the arrangement made by the Chief Medical Officer, Basti.
The writ petition is, thus, found wholly misconceived and dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.1.2021 P Kesari