Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar vs Sanjeev Kumar Mishra on 10 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.158 of 2020
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22551 of 2019
======================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health and Family
Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. State Health Society, Bihar through its Executive Director, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Arvind Kumar Son of Bijay Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Bari Ashikpur,
P.S.-East Colony, Nayan Gaon, District-Munger.
2. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Son of Narsingh Mishra, Resident of Village-
Bharpurwa, P.S.-Vijayipur, District-Gopalganj.
3. The Chairman, Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot
No.2, Community Centre, Maa Anandmai Marg, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi.
4. The Registrar, Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot
No.2, Community Centre, Maa Anandmai Marg, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1708 of 2019
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22551 of 2019
======================================================
Arvind Kumar Son of Bijay Chaudhary, Resident of Village Bari Ashikpur,
P.S.-East Colony, Nayan Gaon, District-Munger.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Son of Narsingh Mishra, Resident of Village-
Bharpurwa, P.s. Vijaypur, District-Gopalganj.
2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health and Family
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Health Society, Bihar through Executive Director, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Chairman, Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot
No.2, Community Centre, Maa Anandmai Marg, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi.
5. The Registrar, Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot
No.2, Community Centre, Maa Anandmai Marg, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 158 of 2020)
For the Appellant/State : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9
Mr. Nagindra Pathak, AC to AAG-9
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
(Pharmacy council of India)
For State Health Society: Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1708 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. K.K. Sinha, Advocate
(State Health Society) Mr. Shashi Shekhar, Advocate
For Private Respondent/s: Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.D. Yadav, AAG-9
Mr. Nagindra Pathak, AC to AAG-9
For the U.O.I. : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate
(Pharmacy council of India)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 10-01-2023
Re:- I.A. No. 01 of 2020 & I.A. No. 04 of 2022 (arising out of
L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020)
Heard Interlocutory Applications for condonation of
delay in filing present L.P.As.
For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit,
delay of about 40 days is condoned.
Accordingly I.A. No. 01 of 2020 and I.A. No. 04 of
2022 for condonation of delay and rectification of I.A. No. 01 of
2020 are allowed.
With the consent of the learned counsels for
respective parties matter is taken up for final disposal.
These two L.P.As. are filed by the State of Bihar and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
Arvind Kumar. They are aggrieved by the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 10.12.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22551 of
2019 (Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.).
Appellant- Arvind Kumar is holder of Diploma in
Pharmacy. On the other hand, Respondents- Sanjeev Kumar
Mishra & Ors. were holders of M.Pharma/B. Pharma. Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra in his C.W.J.C. No. 22551 of 2019 has prayed for
following reliefs:-
"(a) For issuance of writ in the
nature of Mandamus, directing and
commanding upon the respondent authorities,
to immediately remove the technical glitch in
the functioning of Website of -
www.statehealthsocietybihar.org, which is not
having necessary option for registration for
applicants/ Petitioner having Bachelors in
Pharmacy degree for Advertisement No.
07/2019 dated 25/10/19 issued by the
Executive Director, State Health Society, Bihar
for the post of Pharmacist and provide option
for registration for candidates/Petitioner having
Bachelors in Pharmacy degree.
(b) For issuance of an appropriate
writ, directing and commanding upon the
respondent authorities to provide necessary
option for registration for candidates/Petitioner
having Bachelors in Pharmacy degree for
Advertisement No. 07/2019 dated 25/10/19
issued by the Executive Director, State Health
Society, Bihar for the post of Pharmacist.
(c) For any other relief/reliefs which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ application
of Sanjeev Kumar Mishra with following directions (para 39):-
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
"39. The respondents are
accordingly directed to allow the petitioner
and other similarly circumstanced persons,
holding B. Pharma/M. Pharma qualification,
to apply against the said post. It has been
stated at the bar that last date for submission
of application form has expired on
21.11.2019. The Bihar State Health Society is,
therefore, directed to make necessary
arrangement/changes in its software and
extend the last date of submission of
application forms at least by a fortnight from
today for candidates holding
B.Pharma/M.Pharma qualification."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
direction, appellant -Arvind Kumar and the State are in L.P.A.
Brief facts of the case are that both appellant- Arvind
Kumar and Respondent- Sanjeev Kumar Mishra intend to
participate in the process of selection and appointment to the
post of Pharmacist pursuant to Advertisement No. 07/2019. The
post of Pharmacist is governed by the rules called "Bihar
Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014" (For short Rules, 2014) issued
under Article 309 of Constitution. We passed the following
order on 26.09.2022 and 09.11.2022 in C.W.J.C. No. 7120 of
2021 which was delinked on 09.11.2022.
Order dated 26.09.2022 reads as under:-
"Matter is heard for sometime.
Core issue involved in the present
petition is whether Respondents/petitioners are
entitled to participate in the process of selection
and appointment to the post Pharmacist in the light
of Rules called "Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
2014" (For short "Rules, 2014").
Rule 6 of Rules, 2014 provides for
qualification which reads as under:
"6. Qualifications. - (1) For
appointment by direct recruitment to the
basic category posts, minimum educational
qualification shall be Intermediate/10+2
(Science) pass and passing in all parts (part
I, II & III) of Diploma-in Pharmacy from
the institution recognised by the
Government and a certificate to that effect
shall be necessary.
(2) It shall be necessary for the
candidate to be registered with Bihar
Pharmacy Council.
(3) For direct recruitment in the
Pharmacist Cadre, minimum age limit shall
be 21 years and maximum age limit shall
be the same as may be determined
reservation categorywise, from time to
time, by the Government.
(4) 1st August of the concerned
year shall be deemed to be the cut off date
for determination of age."
Rule 7 provides Procedure of
Recruitment which reads as under:-
"7. Procedure of Recruitment. -
(1) The appointing authority,
after calculating vacancy on the basis
of position as on 1st April of the year
and getting roster cleared, shall send
reservation categorywise requisition to
the Commission latest by 30th April.
(2) In light of requisition, the
Commission shall invite applications
after advertising vacancies and shall
prepare merit list on the following
basis:-
(a) For marks obtained in Intermediate/+2 (Science)
examination - 25 marks
(b) For higher degree (B.Sc. / B. Pharma / M.Sc. / M.
Pharma) - 10 marks
(c) For marks obtained in Diploma-in-Pharmacy
examination - 25 marks
(d) For work experience in Government hospitals of
Bihar State (5 marks per year, maximum 25 marks)
- 25 marks
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
(e) For Interview - 15 marks
Total - 100 marks
Note:- The marks to be given to a candidate
for marks obtained in the
Intermediate/10+2 (Science) course
examination shall be determined by
multiplying percentage of total
marks obtained in the aforesaid
courses examination by multiple of
0.25. For example, if a candidate has
obtained 50% marks, he will be
given 50% x 0.25= 12.5 marks.
(3) Procedure for interview
shall be determined by the Commission.
(4) After preparation of merit
list on the basis of sub-rule (2),
preliminary scrutiny of certificates and
medical check up shall be conducted by
the Commission with the co-operation of
the Appointing Authority and, thereafter,
reservation categorywise final
recommendation, in accordance with the
requisitioned vacancies, shall be sent to
the Appointing Authority. At the level of
Appointing Authority also, antecedents of
candidates shall be caused to be verified
after scrutiny of certificates.
(5) After recommendation of
the Commission, compliance of
instructions issued by the Government,
from time to time, with respect to
procedure of appointment, shall be
necessary."
Appendix-1 reads as under:-
Sl. Category Name of Direct Requisite Remarks
No. Posts Recruitment qualifications
or Promotion
1. Basic Pharmacist By Direct (i)
Category Recruitment Intermediate/
+2 (Science)
pass
(ii) Pass in all
parts (part I, II
& III) of
Diploma in
Pharmacy.
(iii) It shall be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
necessary to be
registered with
the Bihar
Pharmacy
Council [Note
- B. Pharma
and M. Pharma
pass may also
apply]
2. First Senior By Promotion - In all
ladder Pharmacist Hospitals
having 20-
beds or more
and in all
Hospitals
having 50-
beds or
more.
3. Second Chief Do - In all District
ladder Pharmacist Hospitals
4. Third Senior Do - In all
ladder Chief Medical
Pharmacist College
Hospitals.
In the light of aforesaid rule position,
question for consideration is whether B.Pharma
and M. Pharma holder could apply for the post of
Pharmacist ignoring Rule 6- qualification
for Pharmacist post.
Undisputedly, Respondents /
petitioners do not posses qualification under
Rule 6, like passing in all parts (Part I, II and
III) of diploma for Pharmacy from the
institution recognized by the Government and
certificate to that effect. On the other hand,
they posses qualification of B. Phamra and M.
Pharma. Further, it is noted that in terms of
Appendix-I, Respondents/petitioners were
permitted to participate in the process of
selection to the post of Pharmacist whereas
Appendix-I is applicable to such of those Rules
which have been cited just below Appendix-I,
like Rules 2 (VIII), 4, 13, 16 and 17 whereas
Rule 6 has been excluded. Therefore, prima
facie one has to draw inference that Rule 6 -
Qualification is mandatory to participate in the
process of selection and appointment to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
post of Pharmacist.
At this stage, learned counsel for the
Respondents- Petitioners seeks time to cite
certain judicial pronouncements.
Re-list this matter on 28.09.2022 at
12.15 PM."
Order dated 09.11.2022 reads as under:-
"Heard learned counsels for the
parties.
2. C.W.J.C. No. 7120 of 2021 and
C.W.J.C. No. 23133 of 2019 are hereby
delinked. With reference to L.P.A. No. 1708
of 2019 and L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020, for the
reasons that validity of Rules are under
challenge, matter requires to be heard
independently.
3. Today, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents in L.P.A. No. 1708 of
2019 and L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020, who are
representing a class of persons, who are
qualified with B.Pharma/M.Pharma and who
do not possess the Diploma in Pharmacy has
submitted that in terms of note to Appendix-I,
Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2016, which
provides for submission of application of such
of those persons who are also qualified with
B.Pharma/M.Pharma, in this regard, he has
pointed out notification issued by the
Pharmacy Council of India dated 16th July,
2019. The aforesaid Notification is Patna
High Court CWJC No.7120 of 2021(9) dt.09-
11-2022 3/5 supported by definition in the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 read with Appendix-III
and Rule 3.1 relating to education vide the
Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015. It is
further submitted that in terms of Rule 20 and
21 of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules,
2014, the Principal Secretary, Health
Department vide its order dated 24.11.2014
clarified that such of those persons, who are
qualified with B.Pharma/M.Pharma were also
eligible to apply for the post of Pharmacist
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
under the Rules, 2014. Rule 20 is in respect of
Interpretation and Rule 21 is in respect of
Removal of difficulties. These two provisions
has been taken note of while issuing order on
24.11.2014. It is further submitted that
definition of minimum has been defined in the
Black's Law Dictionary, which reads as
under:-
"Minimum. The least quantity
assignable, admissible or possible in given
case and is opposed to maximum. Board of
Ed. of City of Rockford v. Page, 33III.2nd
372, 211 N.E.2nd 361, 363."
4. Further, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents cited the following
decisions (i) (2010) 15 SCC, 596 Jyoti K.K.
and Ors Vs. Kerala Public Service
Commission and others (Para-6 and 8). (ii)
A.I.R. 2021 SC 2221 Puneet Sharma Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh (Para-3, 29, 30,
31 and 32 respectively).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for
the appellant submitted that Rule 6(1) of Rule,
2016 & mandates that candidate, who is
eligible for Pharmacist one must be the holder
of minimum education qualification like
Intermediate/+2 (Science) passing in all parts
(Part-I, II and III) of diploma in pharmacy
from the recognized institution. He is insisting
upon the aforesaid clause in order to contend
that the word used in Rule 6(1) "shall"
therefore, it is a mandatory requirement in the
result in the absence of diploma qualification
and who possessed B.Pharma/M.Pharma are
not eligible to make application for
Pharmacist post. It is also submitted that
under Rule 7(2)(b) read with note to
Appendix-I of Rule, 2014. It is submitted that
Rule 7 is in respect of Procedure of
recruitment and not related qualification. In
the event of Diploma holder in pharmacy he
had acquired higher degree like B.Sc./B.
Pharma / M.Sc/ M. Pharma in such
circumstances, he is entitled to 10% marks in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
addition to other marks under different heads.
Learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that note to Appendix-I of Rule,
2014 is required to be read in addition to
Diploma in pharmacy for the reasons that
Note reads as under "Note-
B.Pharma/M.Pharma pass may also apply" is
required to be interpreted that in addition to
Diploma qualification holderwho has passed
B.Pharma/M.Pharma could also apply. It is
submitted that Diploma in pharmacy is one of
the essential qualification in terms of Rule-6
of Rule, 2014.
6. At this juncture, we noticed that
the State has also filed L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020
against the order of the learned Single Judge
order dated 10.12.2019 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 22551 of 2019. The State is a common
party to the lis, therefore, the State is hereby
directed to furnish list of dates and events
before the next date of hearing. Learned State
counsel is also hereby directed to apprise this
Court how he is going to defend the State
government's order dated 24.11.2014 read
with Rule 20 - Interpretation and Rule 21
Removal of difficulties under Rules, 2014 on
the next date of hearing.
7. Relist this matter on 16.11.2022.
8. In respect of C.W.J.C. No. 7120
of 2021 and C.W.J.C. No. 23133 of 2019
matter stands admitted for hearing. Relist
C.W.J.C. No. 7120 of 2021 and C.W.J.C. No.
23133 of 2019 in the month of January,
2023."
In the light of the aforesaid orders of this Court State
filed their supplementary affidavit. Para 6 to 15 reads as under:-
"6. That Pharmacy Act 1948 has
been enacted to regulate the profession of
pharmacy and similarly the same is also not
related to regulate appointment and other
service conditions in the pharmacist cadre
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
under the Health Department, Government of
Bihar.
7. That it is relevant to mention here
in exercise of powers conferred by provisions
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India the
Governor of Bihar is pleased to make the
Pharmacist Cadre Rule 2014 to regulate the
appointment and other service conditions in
the pharmacist cadre under the Health
Department, Government of Bihar.
8. That from the conjoint reading of
Rule 6 & 7 of the aforesaid the Bihar
Pharmacist Cadre Rule 2014 it is evident that
Diploma in Pharmacy from the institution
recognized by the government and certificate
to that effect is necessary.
9. That from the fact as stated
above in other words it is evident that the
certificate of to diploma in Pharmacy 1s
mandatory too participate in the process of
selection and appointment to the post of
Pharmacist.
10. That it is also stated that
Appendix-I is applicable to such of those
rules which have been cited just below
Appendix-I, like Rules 2(VIII), 4, 13, 16 & 17
where as Rule 6 has been excluded.
11. That from perusal of the
aforesaid statutory Rules particularly from
Rule 6 it is evident that persons having the
minimum prescribed qualification of Diploma
in Pharmacy are only entitled to participate in
the process of selection of pharmacist.
12. That Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Nair service society Vs. T.
Beermasthan and others reported in (2009) 5
SCC 545 in para 48 it is held as under:
" Several decisions have been cited
before us by the respondents, but it is well
established that judgments in service
Jurisprudence should be understood with
reference to the particular service Rules in the
state governing that field. Reservation
provisions are enabling provisions, and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
different state governments can have different
methods of reservation there is no challenge
to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the
matter of application alone. In our opinion the
communal rotation has to be applied taking 20
vacancies as a block"
13. That it is humbly stated that in
the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
decision weightage to be given to the
statutory Rule governing the post.
14. That in the instant case the
Bihar Pharmacist cadre Rule 2014 has not
stipulated qualification of B. Pharma & M.
Pharma Degree as minimum eligibility
criteria.
15. That it is humbly submitted that
the order as contained in Memo No.4 VIDHI-
8- as VIDHI- 8- 88/2014-1028(4) dated
24.11.2014 (AnnexXure-15 to the
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioner in CWJC No. 22551 of 2O19
arising out of "the order passed in the
aforesaid case the present appeal has been
preferred on behalf of the appellant) is not
meant for removal of difficulty as provided
under Rule 21 of of aforesaid Rule
particularly in view Rule 20 of the aforesaid
Rule which provides to the effect that:-
"Rule 20 - Interpretation - If any
doubt arises with respect to interpretation
of any be provision of these Rules, it shall
be determined by the Department in
consultation with the Law Department and
in this respect decision of the department
shall be final."
In the light of aforementioned facts and
circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants- State and
Arvind Kumar submitted that such of those candidates who
have acquired qualification of B.Pharma and M.Pharma are not
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
eligible to participate in the process of selection and
appointment to the post of Pharmacist in terms of Rules, 2014,
since Rules 6 and 7 read with Appendix-I, they do not fulfill the
qualification prescribed under Rule 6. In order to overcome,
Memo No. 4/Vidhi-8-88/2014-1028(4) dated 24.11.2014 is
concerned, the State has specifically clarified in para 15 of the
their supplementary affidavit to the extent that the aforesaid
Memo dated 24.11.2014 is not in compliance of Rule 20 of
Rules, 2014 read with Rule 21 of Rules, 2014. It is further
submitted that contention of the contesting respondent- Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra that Central Government Laws are applicable
and Sanjeev Kumar Mishra had better qualification than
Diploma, therefore, he is entitled to participate in the process of
selection and appointment to the post of Pharmacist pursuant to
the Rules, 2014 is not permissible. The cited decisions on behalf
of Sanjeev Kumar Mishra are not applicable to the case in hand.
Appellants are relying on Apex Court's decision rendered in the
case of Nair Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan & Ors.
reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545 at para 48 held as under:
"48. Several decisions have been
cited before us by the respondents, but it is
well established that judgments in service
jurisprudence should be understood with
reference to the particular service rules in
the State governing that field. Reservation
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
provisions are enabling provisions, and
different State Governments can have
different methods of reservation. There is no
challenge to the Rules, and what is
challenged is in the matter of application
alone. In our opinion the communal rotation
has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a
block."
Heard learned counsels for respective parties.
Question for consideration in the present L.P.A. is
whether such of those candidates who have acquired
qualification of M.Pharma and B.Pharma in the absence of
acquisition of Diploma in Pharmacy is/are entitled to participate
in the process of selection and appointment to the post of
Pharmacist in terms of Rules, 2014 or not? Whether Learned
Single Judge has committed error in allowing the petition of the
Respondent- Sanjeev Kumar Mishra or not?
We have already quoted the relevant provisions of
Rules, 2014, in particularly, Rule 6, 7 read with Appendix-1.
Title of Rule 6 is relating to 'Qualification' for the post of
Pharmacist, Rule 7 is relating to 'Procedure of recruitment'. In
Rule 6 while prescribing qualification, Rule does not stipulate
M. Pharma and B. Pharma qualification. On the other hand, only
Diploma in Pharmacy from the institution recognized by the
government and a certificate to that effect has been prescribed.
Respondent- Sanjeev Kumar Mishra cannot take shelter with
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
reference to Rule 7 where the procedure of recruitment is
stipulated, while awarding marks such of those candidates who
are qualified with higher degree, like B.Sc/ B. Pharma/
M.Sc./M. Pharma are entitled to 10 marks and further
Appendix-I (Rules have been mentioned while excluding Rule
6, i.e. qualification), therefore, requisite qualification against the
post of Pharmacist in Appendix-1 (Note- B.Pharma and
M.Pharma pass may also apply) has no application to the post of
Pharmacist read with qualification.
Reading of the aforesaid note, it is in addition to
Diploma in Pharmacy holder and not independently like such of
those M.Pharma and B.Pharma holders who do not possess
qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy in terms of Rule 6 of
Rules, 2014. Therefore, Respondent- Sanjeev Kumar Mishra has
not made out a case that he is eligible to be participated in the
process of selection and appointment to the post of Pharmacist
in terms of Rules, 2014 (Rules 6, 7 read with Appendix-1).
Learned counsel for Respondent- Sanjeev Kumar
Mishra vehemently contended that Central Government policy
decision is required to be taken into consideration. Central
Government policy decision in respect of identifying
qualification cannot be appreciated in the light of Apex Court's
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
decision (cited supra), namely, Nair Service Society Vs. Dr. T.
Beermasthan & Ors. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 545. Moreover,
he has not apprised this Court with reference to any regulation
governing the post of Pharmacist in the Central Government.
Learned Single Judge has committed error in not
taking note of the aforesaid provision, in particularly, Rule 6,
Rule 7 read with Appendix-1. Rules, 2014 provides to such of
those B.Pharma and M.Pharma holders and other higher
qualified persons are entitled to ten marks in the process of
recruitment. In other words, basic qualification is required to be
taken note of with reference to Rule 6 and it stipulate only
Diploma in Pharmacy. Merely acquisition of higher
qualification directly and without basic qualification in the
present case such of those possess M.Pharma and B.Pharma
without there being a Diploma in Pharmacy qualification are not
eligible to participate in the process of selection and
appointment to the post of Pharmacist. In fact, standard of
education syllabus to acquire Diploma in Pharmacy and
M.Pharma and B.Pharma are entirely different. We have come
across that such of those Diploma holders in Pharmacy they are
entitled to work in various Health Departments. On the other
hand, such of those persons who possess M.Pharma and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.158 of 2020 dt.10-01-2023
B.Pharma, they are normally engaged in Industrial side where
drugs and cosmetics are manufactured. That apart, they have the
benefit of employment with reference to Inspector and other
higher post in the Drugs wing of Health Department.
In the light of these facts and circumstances,
appellants- State and Arvind Kumar have made out a prima
facie case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single
Judge dated 10.12.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22551 of 2019.
Hence, order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2019
passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22551 of 2019 stands set aside. In the
result C.W.J.C. filed by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra stands
rejected.
Accordingly, present L.P.As. stands allowed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Arun Kumar Jha, J)
rakhi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.01.2023
Transmission Date NA
