Delhi High Court
Anil Kumar & Ors vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delh on 21 May, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4548/2004, W.P.(C) 4549-4552/2004 & CM APPL.
38562/2018
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Mr. Anupam
Singh, Mr. Ajeyo Sharma and Mr. Vidur
Marwah, Advocates
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. N.K. Singh for Ms. Avnish
Ahlawat, Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 21.05.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Mr. N.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, points out
that this writ petition is incompetent before this Court as the lis is
amenable to adjudication by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 as it
falls within its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. This contention is correct. The relief sought is clearly within the
jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. However, as this petition
has remained pending before this Court for 21 years as on date, we are
not inclined to relegate the parties to any other remedy.
3. The petitioners are Nursing Orderlies who are Class IV
employees working with the respondent Government of NCT of
Delhi2. They claimed to have been discharging the duties of
Pharmacist (Ayurveda).
4. By this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a declaration
that the Recruitment Rules3 for the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda) in
the GNCTD are illegal, ultra vires and violate Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
5. The only ground urged by the petitioners in the writ petition,
and which has been pleaded before us by Mr. Bajaj, learned counsel
for the petitioners, is that there is a distinction between the prescribed
qualifying experience for appointment to the post of Pharmacist
(Ayurveda) in the RRs, as compared with the qualifying experience
prescribed for recruitment to the post of the Pharmacist
(Homoeopathy) in the GNCTD. In para 14 of the written submissions
that have been filed by the petitioners in the present writ petition, this
distinction is thus shown in a tabular form :
Pharmacist Pharmacist (Ayurved)
1 "the Tribunal", hereinafter
2 "GNCTD", hereinafter
3 "the RRs" hereinafter
(Homeopathy)
• Matric or equivalent • Matric or equivalent
• Experience of 2 years in • Training period of minimum 2
Government Hospital or Private years in cooperative
Hospital as homeopathy organization or as an assistant
pharmacist in the dispensary Vaidya in Government
/dispensaries recognized institute / Bheshas
Kalpak Syllabus with an
experience of minimum 2 years
from any recognized Ayurvedic
dispensary / or an experience
from the hospital as an
Ayurvedic pharmacist.
6. Before us too, the only submissions advanced by Mr. Bajaj is
that the afore-noted distinction cannot satisfy the scrutiny of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submits that Pharmacists,
irrespective of whether they are in the discipline of Ayurveda or
Homeopathy, discharge identical duties and, therefore, prescribing
different experience qualifications for recruitment to the post of
Pharmacist (Ayurveda) and Pharmacist (Homeopathy) would infract
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7. We are unable to accept this submission.
8. This is not a case of a claim to pay parity. The petitioners
challenge the prescribed eligibility qualification, by way of qualifying
experience, for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (Ayurveda),
solely on the ground that it is different from the prescribed qualifying
experience for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (Homoeopathy in
the GNCTD.
9. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India apply only where
there is no intelligible differentia between the persons concerned, as
would have a rational nexus to the object of the classification. In the
present case, we do not even have to go that far, as it is not possible
for this Court to arrive at an informed finding that there is no
intelligible differentia between the posts of Pharmacist (Ayurveda)
and Pharmacist (Homeopathy). Ayurveda and Homeopathy are
distinct medical specialities, having their own distinct ingredients and
indicia, and it can certainly not be said that, in prescribing different
experience qualifications for Pharmacists in Ayurveda as compared to
Pharmacist in Homeopathy, any invidious discrimination exists, as
would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. The writ petition too does not afford any ground on the basis of
which this Court can arrive at a conclusion that the prescribed
qualification and experience for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist
(Ayurveda) in the GNCTD are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
11. We, needless to say, are completely lacking in the requisite
expertise to rationalize prescribed eligibility, or qualifications, for
recruitment to technical posts such as the post of Pharmacist, which
belongs to the public health sector.
12. The petitioners, in our considered opinion, have no case
whatsoever.
13. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to
costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MAY 21, 2025/yg
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
