[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 December, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:11263
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2362 of 2024
16th December, 2025
Reeta Pal --Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
with
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2432 of 2024
Upendra Sharma & others --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tapan Singh & Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for State Insurance Scheme,
Uttarakhand.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board
issued an advertisement inviting applications against 62
vacancies on the post of Pharmacist in ESIS Hospitals
within State of Uttarakhand. Petitioners have challenged
condition mentioned in Clause 17 of that advertisement
2025:UHC:11263
issued on 16.10.2024, which provides that selection shall
be made as per provisions contained in Uttarakhand
Employees State Insurance Scheme Pharmacist Cadre
(Allopathic) Service Rules, 2021 and Uttarakhand Post of
Group-A & Group-C (Outside the Purview of Public
Service Commission) Direct Recruitment Procedure Rules,
2008.
2. Petitioners contend that as per applicable
Service Rules, selection for appointment as Pharmacist in
Hospitals run by Employees State Insurance Scheme has
to be made year-wise, depending on the year of passing
Pharmacy Course, and in case two or more candidates
passed Pharmacy Course in the same year, then only
their relative merit has to be considered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
the said criteria of selection laid down in the Rules is
being bypassed and the selection is being held by the
selecting body based on performance of a candidate in
the written examination while written examination is not
contemplated anywhere in the applicable rules.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, including
the selecting body, however, submit that vide notification
dated 2.9.2021, State Government enforced State
Insurance Scheme Pharmacist Cadre (Allopathic) Service
2025:UHC:11263
Rules, 2021. Perusal of the said notification reveals that it
is in supersession of the existing Rules on the subject.
Rule 16 of the said Rules notified in 2021 provides that
selection for appointment as Pharmacist shall be made as
per the criteria determined by Uttarakhand Medical
Service Selection Board. It is contended on behalf of the
respondents that even though under the earlier Rules
there was a provision for selection based on year of
passing Pharmacy Course, however, after enforcement of
new Rules, whereby the earlier Rules were superseded,
the selection criteria has undergone a change and
petitioners cannot now harp upon the old criteria of
selection when new Rules have occupied the field. It is
further submitted that the State Government as employer
has framed the Rules and in the Rules it is provided that
criteria of selection shall be such as is determined by the
Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board. He submits
that in terms of Rule 16 of the new Rules introduced in
2021, requisition was sent to the selecting body and
instructions were issued to hold written examination. He
submits that the mere fact that the Uttarakhand Medical
Service Selection Board was asked to hold selection
reveals the intention of the State Government that State
Government also wanted selection to be made based on
2025:UHC:11263
performance of the candidate in a competitive
examination.
5. Law is well settled that the employer is at
liberty to decide as to mode and manner of holding
selection and also regarding the criteria to be followed
while holding selection for appointment under the State.
6. Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution also require
that selection for appointment to public post should be
merit based. Thus, reliance by the petitioners upon the
old Rules for seeking the relief that the old criteria of
holding selection depending on year of passing Pharmacy
Course should be followed, cannot be accepted, especially
when the new Rules have been enforced, which provide
that selection has to be merit based.
7. Thus, this Court do not find any infringement
of any statutory provision, which may warrant
interference. The condition mentioned in Clause 17 of the
advertisement is as per the requirement of law. Thus, the
relief as claimed cannot be granted.
8. The writ petition thus fail and are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Dt: 16.12.2025
Navin
NAVEEN Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a1
CHANDRA
31bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56
D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.12.18 18:41:37 +05'30'
