Telangana High Court
Duta Bhavana, vs The Chairman And Managing ... on 20 January, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P. No. 10147 OF 2017
&
W.P. No.11003 OF 2017
% 20-01-2023
# I. Rajendra Prasad & others
....petitioners
Vs.
$ The Chairman & Managing Director, Singraeni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Kothagudem Collieries and others
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioner : J. Sudheer
Counsel for the Respondents : B. Arjun, SC for Singareni Colleries
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2021 AIR (SC) 2221
2 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
W.P. No. 10147 OF 2017
&
W.P. No.11003 OF 2017
Between:
I. Rajendra Prasad & others
....petitioners
Vs.
The Chairman & Managing Director, Singraeni Collieries Company Ltd.,
Kothagudem Collieries and others
.... Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 20.01.2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.10147 OF 2017
&
WRIT PETITION No.11003 OF 2017
COMMON ORDER:
These Writ petitions are filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, Order or Orders more particularly one in the nature Writ
of Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are eligible and entitle for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist with the higher qualification of B.
Pharmacy as per merit obtained in the written test and as per the offer of
appointment order dated 09.03.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent by
taking into consideration of the Ad-hoc rule issued vide GO.Ms.No.282 GAD
dated 20.09.2003 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
well as this Court and consequently direct the respondent to issue final
appointment orders to the petitioners as Pharmacists with all consequential
benefits, by holding the action of the respondents in not appointing the
petitioners on the sole ground that the petitioners possessed the higher
qualification of B.Pharmacy than that of the prescribed minimum
qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy is as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory
and subversive of Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India and pass...."
2. Since the facts of the case and the issue involved in both
these Writ Petitions are identical, these Writ Petitions are taken
up together and are being disposed of by this common order.
3. For convenience, the facts in W.P.No.10147 of 2017 are
discussed hereunder:
4 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
The petitioners have contended that they have completed
their B.Pharmacy Degree from Kakatiya University, Warangal,
and they are eligible for selection to the post of Pharmacist. As
per the notification No.1/2016 of the 1st respondent, the
petitioners have applied for the post of Pharmacist. As per
notification, the minimum qualification prescribed for the said
post is Diploma in Pharmacy. It is also clear from the
application form against the column of the examination passed
is diploma / graduation / PG. And against the column of
prescribed qualification, is a diploma in Pharmacy. As per the
column of examination passed, it is very clear that B.Pharmacy
candidates are also eligible to apply to the post of Pharmacist.
3.1 Petitioners have further contended that they were
permitted to appear for written examination and they have
secured 78.66 and 86.00 respectively out of 100 marks. A
provisional merit list of candidates was published which
includes the names of the petitioners at Sl.No.4 and 1
respectively. The final selection list was published on
06.03.2017 wherein the petitioners' names were shown at Sl.
No.5 and 1 respectively. According to this, the 2nd respondent
5 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
had issued a provisional offer of appointment order
dt.09.03.2017 directing the petitioners to appear before them
on 24.03.2017 for verification of certificates. However, in
clause-8 of the offer of appointment order dated 09.03.2017, it
was stated that "if you are possessing the qualification other
than the qualifications prescribed/notified in the notification
No.01/2016 for the posts of Pharmacist, your candidature will
not be considered during the verification of original certificates,
as such, you are informed to ensure the eligibility parameters in
all aspects including qualification before reporting for verification
of original certificates on 24-3-2017."
3.2 It is further contended by the petitioners that along
with the offer of the appointment order, the respondents also
enclosed Annexure-I, i.e. terms and conditions of appointment,
wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioners are
provisionally appointed as Pharmacist on a basic pay of
Rs.17,605.41. Later, the petitioners approached the 2nd
respondent/General Manager and informed that they possess
the qualification of a B.Pharmacy, but surprisingly, the
respondents informed the Petitioners that they will not be
6 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
considered for the said post, as they did not have the minimum
qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy, though they possess the
higher qualification of B.Pharmacy. Aggrieved over the same,
the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents
file counter denying the allegations stating that that the
respondent Company has issued an External Notification
No.01/2016 inviting applications for the post of Pharmacist,
NCWA Grade-D, fixing the qualification as "Diploma in
Pharmacy (with Registration from Pharmacy Council of India)".
The petitioners have gone through the guidelines and submitted
their candidature mentioning their qualification as "Diploma in
Pharmacy" which is a two years course. However, the
petitioners have suppressed the fact that they have completed
the course of B.Pharmacy Degree instead of Diploma in
Pharmacy as notified in the Notification and made the wrong
entry as a 'Diploma in Pharmacy' in the online application, to
validate their application for the said post.
4.1 It is further contended by the respondents that
though it is mentioned clearly in the call letters that "if selected
7 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
for the Pharmacist Post and possessing the qualification other
than the qualification prescribed in the Notification No.01/2016,
the candidature will not be considered", the petitioners ignored
the said conditions stipulated and inscribed their signatures on
the Call Letter accepting the terms and conditions mentioned
therein.
4.2 It is further submitted by the respondents that if the
candidature of the petitioners is considered, litigation may arise
from the candidates who completed a B.Pharmacy degree and
did not appear for the written test scheduled on 12.02.2017 and
the setting of question paper for the post of Pharmacist is
purely based on the qualification mentioned in notification i.e.
Diploma in Pharmacy and not based on the B.Pharmacy.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. Heard Sri CH. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri B. Arjun, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
6. This Court vide interim orders dt.22.03.2017 in
W.P.M.P No. 12568 of 2018 observed as follows:
8 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
"The larger issue as to whether mere possession of
higher qualification than prescribed qualification
would entitle a candidate to compete requires
consideration in the writ petition. Since 7 vacancies
of Pharmacists are notified, granting of stay even to
the extent of two vacancies would not be in the
larger interest of the respondent employer as well
as the employees of the respondent company for
whose benefit the pharmacy counters are operated.
Balance of convenience is not in favour of the
petitioner. However, the selected candidates should
be informed about the pendency of the writ petition
and their appointment shall abide the result of the
writ petition. In the event, petitioners succeeding in
the writ petition, it should be the obligation of the
respondent company to provide employment to the
petitioners with protection of seniority and other
benefits as per their merit. Accordingly, WPMP is
disposed of."
As such, the issue for consideration now before this
Court is with regard to the following two aspects:
i) Whether the B.Pharmacy graduated candidates are also
eligible to apply to the post of Pharmacist under the
Notification 01/2016 of the 1st respondent?
9 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
ii) Whether the candidates holding higher qualification than
that of the prescribed qualification are entitled for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist under the
Notification 01/2016 of the 1st respondent?
7. In answer to the first point, it is necessary to
analyse the material placed before this Court, viz., the
Notification 01/2016 of the 1st respondent, the online
application data sheet of the petitioners and the Provisional
Offer of Appointment Order dt.09.03.2017.
The tabular form of the Notification 01/2016 of the 1st
respondent at page No.5 with SL.No. 07 i.e with respect to the
post of Pharmacist is extracted as hereunder:
SL. NO NAME OF THE POST, GRADE, MINIMUM QUALIFICATION,
NO. OF VACANCIES, ROSTER EXPERIENCE &
DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM AGE
07 PHARMACIST DIPLOMA IN PHARMACY (WITH
NCWA, GRADE-D REGISTRATION FROM PHARMACY
RS.17605.41. COUNCIL OF INDIA).
TOTAL VACANCIES : 7
(UNRESERVED (OPEN TO AGE: MINIMUM 18 YEARS AND
ALL I.E. LOCAL & MAXIMUM 30 YAERS. THE AGE IS
NON-LOCAL): 1 VACANCY, RECKONED AS ON 01.06.2016
(BCBW-1) (HOWEVER, SC, ST, BC
LOCAL -: 6 VACANCIES CANDIDATES WILL HAVE 5
(OC-2; OCW-1; BCB-1; YEARS AGE RELAXATION OF
SCW-1; ST-1) UPPER AGE LIMIT I.E, 30+5=35
YEARS AS ON 01.06.2016).
10 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
8. A bare reading of column No.3 shows that it is
mentioned as a Minimum qualification. When they mentioned
Minimum qualification, it is deemed that there would be
Maximum qualification. Coming to the Online Application, the
Data Sheet of the petitioners and the relevant tabular form i.e
the Educational Qualifications portion is extracted as
hereunder:
Educational Qualifications
Examination Passed: Diploma/Graduation/PG
Prescribed DIPLOMA IN PHARMACY
Qualification:
Subject: N/A
Name & Place of Kakatiya wgl
University/Board:
%age of Marks: 68.30
Year of Passing: 2010
Duration of Course 4
9. The second column shows the passing of the
examination...Diploma/Graduation/PG and prescribed
qualification is mentioned as Diploma in Pharmacy. When it is
their contention only the candidates who passed Diploma in
Pharmacy are eligible to apply for the post of Pharmacist, they
would not have mentioned Diploma/Graduation/PG. Moreover,
the petitioners have mentioned the duration of the course as 4
11 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
years, and when the course for Diploma is for two years, they
ought not to have accepted the applications of the petitioners.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed in
the post of Pharmacist as per the notification 01/2016 of the 1st
respondent. He relied upon the Ad-hoc rule under Article 309
if the Constitution of India vide G.O. Ms No.282, General
Administration Department, dt.20.09.2003 which is as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra
Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules or
Special Rules or any other rule governing the post for
the Direct Recruitment the candidate who possesses
higher qualification than the prescribed qualification
and the candidate with higher qualification without
the prescribed qualification shall also be considered
for selection along with candidates who have the
prescribed qualification only."
In view of the above Ad-hoc, the petitioners are
eligible to be appointed as Pharmacists.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon
the Notification dt.04.01.2017 issued by the District Medical &
Health Office, Hyderabad, wherein at column No.5 is shown as
under:
12 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
S. Name of the Qualification Eligibility Pay Total posts
No. post allotted sanctioned
5 Pharmacist a. Intermediate 11,000/- 85
b. D. Pharmacy/B. Pharmacy
c. Must be registered with the
Pharmacy council.
As seen from the above, the Government itself
declared that the post of Pharmacist can be filled up by a
candidate who possesses either D. Pharmacy / B. Pharmacy
which goes to show that the petitioners are eligible for the post
of Pharmacist. However, the respondents are in contradiction
with the above said notification.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Puneet Sharma Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity
Board Ltd.,1 wherein it was held that even for the post of
Junior Engineers, those individuals holding higher
qualifications are eligible to compete and directed the
respondent to process candidature of all applicants, including
degree holders who participated and depending on relative
2021 AIR (SC) 2221
13 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
merits, proceed to issue final selection list of all successful
candidates, after holding interviews. In this case also, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the persons with higher
qualifications to be eligible for the post specifying a lesser
qualification.
13. However, on the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that the
petitioners appeared for certificates verification pursuant to
receiving a Provisional Offer of Appointment Order and when
the same were verified, it came to the notice of the
respondents that the petitioners do not possess the
prescribed qualification i.e Diploma in Pharmacy and they
have suppressed the information that they possessed B.
Pharmacy. As such, the petitioners were denied the
appointment.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion in the above
paras, it cannot be found fault with the petitioners and this
Writ Petition is liable to be allowed.
14 RRN,J
W.P.Nos.10147 & 11003 of 2017
15. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are allowed by
directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners as
Pharmacists as per the offer of appointment order dated
09.03.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent with protection
of seniority and other benefits as per the merit. No order
as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in these writ petitions, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
20th day of January, 2023
BDR
