Should the post of Controller Drugs and Food (CD&F) be filled up through direct recruitment or through promotion from the Deputy Controller Drugs and Food and the relevant issue of appointments made to this post in a totally flawed manner having reached the High Court, depicts how in sensitive personnel matters, especially relating to occupying a post as under reference , the concerned Government department has violated rule and regulations. If the Government has made it a condition that the eligibility for such post is directly related to and based on the consideration of experience of a minimum period of seven years , there was no point in having gone against the said Rules. In other words, if as per the existing Rules that an incumbent must have a minimum experience of seven years working in the capacity of Deputy Controller Drugs in “substantive capacity”, only then – can one be considered for the post of Controller Drugs and Food through internal promotion should have been followed scrupulously. In this connection, the serving incumbent and the claimant having been declared by the Division Bench of the High Court as ”not eligible and qualified” for the post simply because of the clause of mandatory seven years experience having not been fulfilled by them, has cleared the mist from the entire case, while as such duly clarifying the criterion of eligibility. Both of them, however, were ”appointed” on the same day by direct recruitment as Assistant Controller Drugs while the appellant was in the waiting list but the claimant only appeared as selected in the merit list . The claimant , though having been appointed through direct recruitment too is not eligible and qualified for the said post not to speak of the one in the waiting list but having occupied the post, is what the court has ruled. Should the judgment not be taken as complete disapproval of the manner in which the said post was allowed to be held by the appellant by the Department of Health and Medical Education ? There being no basic differing of views between the writ court and the High Court in dealing with the case which the High Court has been put as ”no illegality or any flaw in the impugned judgment which may permit us to intervene in the matter.” In other words, the appeal preferred by the appellant against the writ court has been dismissed by the High Court. Appointments that go against the statute would necessarily be void in law and such a person , therefore, has no right to continue on such a post . Rule 5 read with schedule -ll of Rules of Promotion to the post of Controller of Drugs clearly stating the position about holding of such post , therefore, bestows no legal right to even continue on such post by the present incumbent . The High Court , therefore, very importantly has observed that rescinding of “any order authorising them (both the appellant and the claimant) to work on it (the said post of Controller Drugs and Food ) suffers from no illegality.” That such person who is neither eligible nor possesses the requisite qualifications even for direct recruitment should not even approach the courts for any relief as he or she does not have the right to hold the post , is the crux of the judgment of the Bench of the High Court in the matter. Should not therefore services of such a person be out rightly terminated and revocation of his appointment would be perfectly in order and not treated as illegal .
Follow our WhatsApp channel