Inter-departmental disputes regarding statutory nomination authority must be resolved by the Chief Minister under Executive Business Rules.

The Health Family Welfare Department of Assam was bifurcated on 05.05.2022 into two departments: (i) Health Family Welfare (HFW) and (ii) Medical Education Research Department (MERD)

Following a requisition from the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for a State nominee under Section 3(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the MERD (which controls Pharmacy Institutes) constituted a Screening Committee that recommended the Appellant

Simultaneously, the HFW Department recommended Respondent No. 6

On 29.08.2023, the HFW Department recalled the Appellant's nomination and confirmed Respondent No. 6, an action approved by the Departmental Minister

The Appellant challenged this before a Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that the decision was a valid administrative act within the realm of limited judicial review

1. Whether the Health Family Welfare Department or the Medical Education Research Department had the jurisdiction/authority to nominate a member to the Pharmacy Council of India following the departmental bifurcation

2. Whether the dispute regarding the allocation of executive business between two departments required resolution by the Chief Minister or Chief Secretary under the Rules of Executive Business

Section 3(h) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, concerning the nomination of members to the PCI

Government Notification dated 05.05.2022, which reorganized the Health Department and allocated "Pharmacy and Para-Medical Institutes" specifically to the Medical Education Research Department

The Rules of Executive Business, which mandate that disputes regarding the "reach and ambit" of departmental work must be referred to the Chief Secretary or the Chief Minister for resolution

The Court observed that while the PCI’s requisition was sent to the HFW Department, the specific subject of "Pharmacy" had been transferred to the MERD post-bifurcation

The MERD had followed a formal procedure via a Screening Committee to select the Appellant, whereas the HFW Department’s nomination of Respondent No. 6 was done without such a procedure, though it carried Ministerial approval

The Court disagreed with the Single Judge's view that the lack of an inter-departmental complaint rendered the issue a simple administrative matter

The Court reasoned that under the Rules of Executive Business, a jurisdictional conflict between two departments over a nomination cannot be settled unilaterally by one department; instead, it necessitates a formal resolution by the Head of the Government—the Chief Minister

It held that the Chief Minister must decide which department possesses the jurisdiction to process the file for nomination. Pending this decision, Respondent No. 6 is permitted to continue discharging his functions as a Member of the Pharmacy Council of India. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.