Calcutta HC Upholds WB Pharmacy Council Reconstitution, Rejects Member's Tenure Claim
CHC Killar’s Medical Staff Gap Raises High Court Concern
New Delhi: The Calcutta High Court on 11 March 2026 delivered a judgment in the case of Debasish Bhattacharjee vs The State of West Bengal & Others, clarifying key issues surrounding the tenure and continuation of nominated members in the West Bengal Pharmacy Council under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
The case primarily revolved around the legality of a government notification dated 28 July 2025, through which the Council was reconstituted, and whether the petitioner, a nominated member, was entitled to continue in office until February 2026 as claimed.
The background of the case reveals that the petitioner, Debasish Bhattacharjee, had initially been nominated as a member of the West Bengal Pharmacy Council in 2012 and was subsequently re-nominated through an order dated 22 February 2021. According to the petitioner, this re-nomination entitled him to a full five-year tenure extending up to February 2026. However, during this period, certain changes occurred within the Council, including the death of a member and subsequent vacancies, and eventually the State Government issued a notification on 28 July 2025 reconstituting the entire Council by nominating new members and declaring elected members under Section 19 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
Also Read: B.Pharm Graduate Allegedly Dies by Suicide After Consuming Poison
The petitioner challenged this notification, arguing in detail that the reconstitution was premature and violative of statutory provisions. He contended that the notification incorrectly stated that it was issued “on expiry of the term” of the Council, whereas in reality the term, according to him, was valid until February 2026. He further argued that the composition of the Council was flawed, particularly pointing out that the Director of Health Services had been included improperly under Section 19(c), which specifically requires a member elected from the Medical Council. Additionally, the petitioner relied on judicial precedent to assert that a nominated member’s tenure should continue for at least five years and may extend until a successor is duly appointed, thereby supporting his claim for continuation in office.
On the other hand, the State, represented by the learned Additional Advocate General, strongly opposed the petition. The State submitted that the petitioner was merely one among several nominated members under Section 19(b) and that the delay in conducting elections had necessitated administrative adjustments. It was argued that elections were eventually held in 2024, with results declared in February 2025 and formally notified in July 2025, and that the reconstitution of the Council was essential for its proper and smooth functioning. The State maintained that once new members—both elected and nominated—were brought in, the petitioner could not claim continuation as a matter of right.
Further, counsel representing the West Bengal Pharmacy Council elaborated that the Council’s tenure had effectively expired earlier, in 2023, when calculated from the original cycle beginning in 2018. It was emphasized that the 2021 notification merely regularized earlier irregularities and did not grant a fresh independent five-year tenure beginning from 2021. They argued that under Section 25 of the Pharmacy Act, the tenure of a member is five years or until a successor is appointed, whichever is longer, and once successors were duly appointed through the 28 July 2025 notification, the petitioner’s continuation automatically ceased. Additionally, intervening applicants highlighted that due to the interim stay granted earlier, routine functioning of the Council—such as issuance of certificates, registration of pharmacists, and disciplinary matters—had been severely hampered.
After examining the statutory provisions, particularly Sections 19 and 25 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and considering the facts in detail, the Court observed that the petitioner’s tenure could not be calculated afresh from 22 February 2021. Instead, the Court held that the 2021 order merely regularized the petitioner’s earlier tenure, which had effectively commenced prior to 2018. The Court noted that the petitioner’s term had expired on 18 June 2023, but he continued only because no successor had been appointed until 28 July 2025. Once new members were nominated and elected on that date, the petitioner lost any legal right to continue. The Court also distinguished the judgment cited by the petitioner, holding that it was not applicable to the present factual matrix.
Finally, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of the notification dated 28 July 2025.
The operative part of the judgment reads:
“Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court did not find any merit in the present writ petition, accordingly, WPA No. 17878 of 2025 is dismissed. Interim order is vacated. Consequently, CAN No. 1 of 2025, CAN No. 2 of 2025 and CAN No. 3 of 2026 are disposed of.”
To view the official order, click the link below:
