Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010170462024 2026:GAU-AS:7492-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ Appeal No.290 of 2024 Dr. Bichitra Kr. Doley, Son of Late Padmeshwar Doley, Resident of Duarachuk, Kumaroni Chiga, Near Dibrugarh University, PO & PS: Rajabheta, District: Dibrugarh, Assam, PIN – 786008. …… Appellant -Versus- 1. The State of Assam, through the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department, Dispur – 781006. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Medical Education & Research Department, Dispur, Guwahati – 781006. 3. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Medical Education & Research Department, Dispur, Guwahati – 781006. 4. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati – 781006. 5. The Director of Medical Education, Assam, 6th Mile, Khanapara, Guwahati – 781022. 6. Shri Sudhir Chandra Saham, Pharmacist, Assam Bidhan Sabha Swaystha Kendra, Dispur, Guwahati – 781006. 7. The Registrar-cum-Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No.2, Community Page No.# 2/8 Centre, MAA Anandomoi Marg, Okhla Phase-1, Landmark (Near Hotel Crown Plaza), New Delhi – 20. …… Respondents – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Ms. T.J. Sahewalla, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D.P. Borah, Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department for respondent Nos.1 to 5. : Mr. G. Rahul, Advocate for respondent No.6. Date of hearing : 29.05.2026. Date of Judgment : 29.05.2026. JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant; Mr. D.P. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department, Ministry of Medical Education & Research Department and Mr. G. Rahul, learned Advocate for the respondent No.6. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is regarding the nomination as State of Assam’s Member to the Pharmacy Council of India under Section 3(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. 3. The appellant, who claims himself to be a highly qualified Pharmacist, had applied for nomination, which was considered by a Screening Committee constituted by the Director of Medical Education. Page No.# 3/8 All eligible applications for nomination were evaluated whereafter the appellant was recommended for his selection as nominee of the State for becoming a Member to the Pharmacy Council of India. His name was forwarded to the Pharmacy Council of India by the Medical Education & Research Department on 08.08.2023. However, the Health & Family Welfare Department, through its Joint Secretary (respondent No.4), forwarded the name of respondent No.6, who is a Pharmacist working in the Assam Legislative Assembly’s Health Centre, on 07.08.2023 and later on 29.08.2023, recalled the nomination of the appellant and confirmed the nomination of the respondent No.6. This apparently was done with the approval of the Hon’ble Minister of the Department. 4. Mr. Sahewalla has drawn the attention of this Court to a communication made on behalf of the Pharmacy Council of India to the Principal Secretary to the Health & Family Welfare Department seeking nomination of a person to be the Member of the Pharmacy Council of India under Section 3(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Pursuant to such requisition/communication, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Medical Education & Research Department recommended three names, the appellant being one of them, for being considered for nomination. 5. For the purposes of evaluation of the candidature of the afore- noted three persons, specific views were sought from the Director of Medical Education, Assam. It appears that a Screening Committee was constituted by the Director of Medical Education, Assam for selecting one out of the three candidates for becoming a Member. The Committee Page No.# 4/8 comprised five persons, who, vide minutes dated 01.08.2023, found the appellant to be most suitable for being nominated as a Member to the Pharmacy Council of India from the Government of Assam. It further appears that simultaneously, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Department of Health & Family Welfare recommended the respondent No.6 to be a Member and by letter dated 29.08.2023, recalled the nomination of the appellant, which was made vide Medical Education & Research Department’s letter dated 08.08.2023. 6. Mr. Sahewalla has argued that a proper procedure was adopted by the Medical Education & Research Department for selection of the name of one person out of three for nomination to the Pharmacy Council of India, which could not have been recalled unilaterally. He has further submitted that the respondent No.6 could not have been nominated straightway without any procedure being followed in that regard. That apart, it has been submitted that it was only on the communication made by the Pharmacy Council of India that the exercise was initiated for selecting the name of a person, who was to be nominated and it was only after proper scrutiny that the name of the appellant was selected. 7. Responding to this submission, Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel, who represents the Health Department, which includes the Health & Family Welfare Department and Medical Education & Research Department that in fact the requisition was made to the Health & Family Page No.# 5/8 Welfare Department and that Medical Education & Research Department ought not to have initiated any exercise for selecting and forwarding the name of the person to be nominated as Member of the Pharmacy Council of India. 8. We have noticed that on 05.05.2022, under the orders of the Governor of Assam, a Notification was issued in the interest of public service to reorganize the existing Health & Family Welfare Department into two separate Departments viz. (i) Health & Family Welfare Department, and (ii) Medical Education & Research Department. The Health & Family Welfare Department had to have the control of the Directorate of Health Services (DHC); Directorate of Health Services (Family Welfare); Directorate of Ayush; National Health Mission (NHM); Food Safety and Drugs Administration; Assam State Aids Control Society (ASACS) and All Nursing Schools. The Medical Education & Research Department was made the controlling Department for Directorate of Medical Education; All Medical Colleges & Hospitals, including Dental Colleges, Nursing Colleges, Pharmacy and Para-Medical Institutes under the Directorate of Medical Education; Government of Ayurvedic and Homoeopathic Colleges; Assam Cancer Care Foundation; Atal Amrit Abhijan (AAA) Society/ Pradhan Mantrir Jan Arogya Yojana; Assam Employees Health Scheme; Assam Health System Strengthening Project Society; Srimanta Sankardeva University of Health Sciences (SSUHS) and any other Institution relating to Medical Education & Research. It was also clarified by that Notification that all Page No.# 6/8 correspondences relating to existing Health & Family Welfare Department will now be made in the name of the new Departments as per allocation. 9. The requisition from the Pharmacy Council of India for nomination of a Member, notwithstanding the bifurcation of the Department, was made to Health & Family Welfare Department, which actually has not been allocated the work related to Pharmacy and Para- medical Institutes under the Directorate of Medical Education of which the controlling Department is the Medical Education & Research Department. 10. Under such circumstances, it has been argued by Mr. Sahewalla that Medical Education & Research Department had taken up the exercise of selecting a suitable person for nomination, which could not have been recalled and a new name of respondent No.6 being introduced, who now has joined as a Member of the Pharmacy Council of India. 11. The issue before the learned Single Judge, therefore, was as to which Department had the authority to nominate the Member of the Pharmacy Council of India. 12. According to the Rules of Executive Business, in case of any dispute regarding the reach and ambit of the area of work, the issue had to be referred to the Chief Secretary or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, for resolution. Not doing so and recalling the nomination of the appellant was, it has been argued, an abuse of the exercise of power by the Health & Family Welfare Department. Page No.# 7/8 13. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the submission on the ground that the nomination of the respondent No.6 was with the approval of the concerned Minister and that there was no complaint whatsoever from the Medical Education & Research Department regarding the nomination of the respondent No.6 later after the Health & Family Welfare Department had already recommended the appellant. Under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge concluded that the issue was in the realm of administrative decision- making, which did not require/necessitate any judicial review. 14. The power of judicial review, the learned Single Judge opined, in such matters was very limited, especially, when no case of mala fides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness could be amply demonstrated. It was also held that in the event of the nomination having the concurrence of the Minister in-charge and no complaint made by the Department as such, for any usurpation of the power by another Department, any interference was absolutely unnecessary. 15. However, from the records available, we find that though a general communication was made to the Health & Family Welfare Department by the Pharmacy Council of India but since any matter relating to pharmacy was within the control of Medical Education & Research Department, normally the Medical Education & Research Department was required to take a decision. 16. True it is that the Medical Education & Research Department did not have any objection to the nomination of the respondent No.6 by the Health & Family Welfare Department but in order to settle the dispute, Page No.# 8/8 a resolution as to which Department had the jurisdiction to process the file for nomination of a Member to the Pharmacy Council of India, was necessary. 17. We do reckon that the nomination of the respondent No.6 by the Health & Family Welfare Department has the approval of the Minister in-charge but then it would have been more appropriate if the issue would have been resolved by referring the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. 18. Thus, interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we direct that the matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Minister for a resolution of the dispute and till the time any decision is taken in that regard, respondent No.6, who has already joined as Member of the Pharmacy Council of India, shall be allowed to continue to discharge his function. 19. The appeal stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant Mukut Sharma Digitally signed by Mukut Sharma Date: 2026.05.30 10:56:22 +05'30'