Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2362/2024 on 7 January, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPSS No. 2362 of 2024
WPSS No. 2432 of 2024
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the
petitioners in the connected writ petition.
3. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate
General for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4.
4. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for
respondent no. 5.
5. The short issue involved in this writ petition is
what would be the criteria of selection for the post of
Pharmacist in Labour Medical Services, which has been
advertised by the Medical Service Board on 16.10.2024.
On the previous date, the State was directed to place
before this court the requisition and on perusal of
requisition it reveals that the requisition was sent to the
recruiting board along with the Rules of 2021 i.e.
mRrjk[k.M deZpkjh jkT; chek ;kstuk QkekZflLV laoxZ ¼,yksiSfFkd½ lsok
fu;ekoyh 2021.
6. Under the said Rule, Rule-16 pertains to a
selection through direct recruitment. In this Rule the
procedure has not been prescribed and for that
purposes the Recruiting Board adopted the Rules of
Uttarakhand Procedure for direct recruitment of
Group-C post (outside the purview of Public Service
Commission), 2008.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ramji
Srivastava submits that this Rule was adopted since it
covers the post having the qualification of Pharmacy
and the criteria as prescribed in the said Rule is the
written examination.
8. In response to this, learned counsel Mr. Bhagwat
Mehra and Mr. Tapan Singh argued that earlier there
were Rules known as U.P. Pharmacist Service Rules,
1980, wherein, the criteria to fill-up the post of
Pharmacist is prescribed and thereafter an issue came
up before the Allahabad High Court that what would
be the criteria for selection to the post of Pharmacist.
Thereafter, the Allahabad High Court decided the issue
by holding that the criteria for selection to the post of
Pharmacist would be based upon the year of passing of
diploma in pharmacy.
9. Against the said judgment the State of U.P. went
in appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
Hon'ble Apex Court also affirmed the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. vs.
Santosh Kumar Mishra and Another reported in
(2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 52.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhagwat
Mehra further argued that pursuant to the judgment
rendered by the Allahabad High Court, which was
affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State of
Uttarakhand amend the Rules of 1980 by notification
dated 12.01.2006 i.e. U.P. Pharmacist Service
(Uttaranchal Amendment) Rules, 2006 and Rule-15 of
the said Rule was amended and the year of passing is
prescribed as procedure for selection. The said
amended Rules of 2006 is appended at page 35.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bhagwat
Mehra submits that for all purposes since Rules of 2021
does not contain any procedure for selection for the
post of Pharmacist, therefore, the Recruiting Board
adopt the amended Rules of 2006 particularly keeping
in view of the fact that the eligibility for the post of
Pharmacist in medical health, medical education as
well as in labour department are the same.
12. They argued that the Recruiting Board wrongly
adopted the Rules of 2008, wherein, there is no
reference of post of Pharmacist and a reference has
been given of posts which includes the qualification of
Pharmacy. He submits that the qualification of
Pharmacy is also required to the other posts like Lab
Assistant etc.
13. Prima-facie I found force on submission of
learned counsel for the petitioners particularly when
the amended Rules of 2006, which are amendment to
the Rules of 1980 are very clear, wherein, the procedure
as prescribed for selection is the year of passing.
14. It is also undisputed fact that earlier in all the
department the post of Pharmacist has to be filled up as
per the Rules of 1980 and the Rules of 2006 are nothing
but amendment to the Rules of 1980.
15. On the request of learned Deputy Advocate
General Mr. N.S. Pundir and learned counsel for the
respondent Mr. Ramji Srivastava in order to enable
them to get instructions in the matter why the Rules of
2006 has not been followed for the purposes of
adopting the procedure for selection.
16. Put up this matter on 09.01.2025.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
07.01.2025
PR
