Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010022262024 2026:GAU-AS:13789 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/653/2024 ABHIJIT HAZARIKA S/O- LATE JAGESH HAZARIKA, VILLAGE- BARKETRI BARNI, P.O. BARNARDDI, P.S. BELSOR, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HEALTH SERVICES AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-36 3:THE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU 4:THE JOINT SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE KARBI ANGLONG AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL DIPHU 5:THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES KARBI ANGLONG Page No.# 2/10 DIST.- DIPHU ASSAM 6:THE ADDL. CHIEF MEDL. AND HEALTH OFFICER (FW) KARBI ANGLONG DIST.- DIPHU ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, S. M. ZINNA,MS A BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, SC, K A A C BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 08/09/2026 Heard Mr. A M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Bhuyan, learned Standing counsel, Health Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. J Chutia, learned Standing counsel, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition has assailed an order dated 14.09.2022, by which, the petitioner was released from his services as a Pharmacist, Rongmongwe MPHC, Karbi Anglong, with immediate effect. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the authorities of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, had vide a communication dated 17.07.2009, approved the name of the petitioner for appointment as Pharmacist under the establishment Page No.# 3/10 of the Joint Director of Health Services, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, against an available vacancy. In terms of the approval so granted by the Council, the petitioner was vide an order dated 07.12.2009, issued by the Joint Director of Health Services, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, appointed as a Pharmacist for a period of 3 (three) months and was posted to Tekelangjun SHC. The petitioner, accordingly, joined his services and continued therein, even after completion of the period of 3 (three) months, as prescribed in his said order of appointment dated 07.12.2009. The petitioner was, thereafter, vide an order dated 21.12.2010, transferred to Rongmongwe MPHC in the same capacity. The petitioner has projected that on being inflicted with schizophrenia, the petitioner was not in a position to discharge his duties as a Pharmacist, w.e.f. July, 2011. He, however, projects that the inability of the petitioner to discharge his duties was being informed to his Superiors and accordingly, the petitioner was in receipt of his salaries till May, 2015. It is further projected that the petitioner in the year 2016, had become physically and mentally fit and had reported for resuming his services, but he was not allowed to resume his services. Subsequently, the petitioner was directed to appear before a Medical Board, constituted in the matter. It is also contended that the petitioner, accordingly, appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board, on examination of the petitioner submitted a report on 24.05.2022, that the petitioner requires continuous medication under supervision with periodic follow up in a psychiatric set up. It was further opined that the petitioner be transferred to a suitable place near his home, so that he can continue with his job and his treatment as well. The report of the Medical Board was processed by the respondent authorities and the respondent Page No.# 4/10 authorities, considering the matter, proceeded vide order dated 14.09.2022 to release the petitioner from his services as a Pharmacist and also from the disposal of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, with immediate effect. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has submitted that the opinion submitted by the Medical Board, constituted in the matter after examination of the petitioner, would go to reveal that the petitioner had not willfully remained away from his duties, but was forced to remain away from his duties on account of the ailments suffered by him. 4.1 Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who otherwise, has the requisite qualifications for being appointed as a Pharmacist, could not have been released from his services, only on the ground that he was suffering from schizophrenia, which was in partial remission without major active symptoms in terms of the opinion of the Medical Board. 4.2 Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that although, the initial appointment of the petitioner against the post of Pharmacist was effected for a period of 3 (three) months, however, the petitioner was being continued in his services considering his suitability and also the necessity of having a qualified person to hold the post of Pharmacist. 4.3 Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, the petitioner admittedly is suffering from an ailment, the same, however, does not affect the discharge of his duties as a Pharmacist and accordingly, the respondent authorities ought not to have proceeded to release the petitioner Page No.# 5/10 from his services on the said count. 4.4 Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having served the respondents for a long period of time, in the event, the respondents were of the considered view that the petitioner was not suitable to discharge the duties assigned to the post of Pharmacist, they ought to have appointed the petitioner against an alternative post, so as to facilitate the petitioner to provide for the expenses required for his treatment as well as for maintaining himself and his family members. 4.5 Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 277 ; (2) V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 ; (3) Nar Singh Paul Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 588 ; (4) Dipti Prakash Banarjee -VS- Satyaendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Science, Calcutta and others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 ; (5) Ratnesh Kumar Choudhury -VS- Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna, Bihar and others, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 151; (6) State of U.P. and others -VS- Vijay Shankar Tripati, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 135 ; (7) Kishore Bhuyan -VS- State of Assam and others, reported in 2014 (4) GLT 601 ; Page No.# 6/10 (8) Hemanta Kr. Talukdar -VS- State of Assam and others, reported in 2003 (1) GLT 299 ; (9) Chhel Singh -VS- MGB Gramin Bank, Pali and others, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 166 ; and (10) Sandeep Kumar -VS- GB Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri and others, reported in 2024 0 AIR (SC) 1916. 5. Mr. J Chutia, learned Standing counsel, KAAC submits that the petitioner was temporarily appointed for a period of 3 (three) months, vide an order dated 07.12.2009, as a Pharmacist. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred vide an order dated 21.12.2010, to Rongmongwe MPHC, wherein, he joined in the year 2011. However, the petitioner was found to be absent on regular basis since the month of July, 2011. 5.1 It is projected that the petitioner was issued with a Notice on 02.06.2015, requiring him to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for his gross negligence towards Government service. The pay of the petitioner was held up w.e.f. May, 2015, till receipt of a satisfactory reply from the petitioner. 5.2 Mr. Chutia, learned Standing counsel, KAAC further submits that the petitioner was also produced before a Medical Board, constituted in the matter and the Medical Board had opined that the petitioner was suffering from schizophrenia. He submits that the ailment suffered by the petitioner would act as a hindrance in discharge of his duties as a Pharmacist, because hallucination being a primary symptom of schizophrenia, the same has the effect of causing a serious risk, inasmuch as, the petitioner may misinterpret prescriptions or Page No.# 7/10 commit errors in dispensing medication. Accordingly, it is submitted that the authorities of the KAAC, after examining the case of the petitioner, had arrived at a decision to release him from his services as a Pharmacist. 5.3 It is submitted that the petitioner being appointed only on temporary basis, the petitioner not being found to be suitable for the work required to be discharged by a Pharmacist, the release of the petitioner from his services, cannot be construed to have visited the petitioner with a stigma and accordingly, it is submitted that the order dated 14.09.2022, releasing the petitioner from the services of the KAAC, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. 8. The petitioner admittedly had remained absent from his services, w.e.f. July, 2011. He had, thereafter, approached the authorities for resuming his services in the year 2016 and subsequently, the respondent authorities had required him to appear before a Medical Board. The petitioner appeared before the Medical Board and the Medical Board, on examination of the petitioner, submitted its report on 24.05.2022, wherein, it was opined that the petitioner was a Chronic sufferer of schizophrenia, which as of then, was in partial remission without major active symptoms. The Medical Board, accordingly, opined that the petitioner required continuous medication under supervision with periodic follow up in a psychiatric set up. The Medical Board also opined that the petitioner be transferred to a suitable place near his hometown, so that Page No.# 8/10 he can continue with his job and treatment as well. 9. The respondent authorities, on a consideration of the opinion of the Medical Board, as well as considering the effect of the ailment suffered by the petitioner, in discharge of his duties, proceeded vide order dated 14.09.2022, to release the petitioner from the post of Pharmacist. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner, herein, was initially appointed only for a period of 3 (three) months vide the order dated 07.12.2009. Although, the petitioner had continued in his services, it is found that after around 2 (two) years of his such appointment, i.e., w.e.f. July, 2011, the petitioner had remained continuously absent. The absence of the petitioner had affected the works of the Medical Unit, wherein, the petitioner was so posted. 11. This Court further finds that the petitioner has also not disputed that he was suffering from schizophrenia and it is only on account of the said ailment that the petitioner was required to remain out of service. The petitioner being engaged as a Pharmacist, enormous responsibility was placed on his shoulder and a mistake on his part would have the effect of affecting the health of the patients coming to the Medical Unit, wherein, the petitioner was posted. There is a possibility of the petitioner in view of the ailment suffered by him in misinterpreting the prescriptions given by the Medical Practitioners or committing a mistake in giving medicines to the patients, who are illiterate persons. 12. Accordingly, in view of the ailment suffered by the petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner was only engaged for a period of 3 (three) months and that too, without any selection being held in the matter, Page No.# 9/10 coupled with the fact that the petitioner is found to have discharged his duties only for a period of 2 (two) years, this Court is of the considered view that the release of the petitioner effected vide the impugned order dated 14.09.2022, is not erroneous and accordingly, would not mandate an interference from this Court. 13. 13. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court noticing the fact that the petitioner was found to be unsuitable to discharge the duties assigned to a Pharmacist, on account of the ailment suffered by him, provides that the petitioner may approach the respondent authorities by way of submitting a representation, praying for an alternative appointment/ engagement against a post, suitable for the purpose. In the event of submission of such representation by the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall consider the same sympathetically and on examination of the suitability of the petitioner, appoint him against an appropriate post on temporary basis and permit the petitioner to work, therein. 14. However, the said liberty given to the petitioner be not construed to have the effect of this Court, directing the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner in his services, in terms of his initial appointment and the petitioner shall also not be entitled to claim any back wages for the period he had not discharged his duties. The petitioner would be entitled to his wages only in the event, an appointment is so effected in his case, by the Council authorities. 15. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner, which has been duly perused by this Court, is held to not advance the case of the petitioner and accordingly, a detail discussion thereon, is not made in the present order. Page No.# 10/10 16. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant