[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Om Prakash & Others ----Appellants vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 3 January, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:80-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
03 January, 2026
Special Appeal No.319 of 2025
Om Prakash & Others ----Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.299 of 2025
Pankaj Mohan Dhyani & Another ----Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.315 of 2025
Vinod Kumar ----Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ----Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the appellants in SPA
No.319/2025
Mr. Pawan Sanwal, learned counsel for the appellants in SPA
No.299/2025
Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in SPA
No.315/2025
Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr. Gaurav Nagpal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Ramji
1
2026:UHC:80-DB
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3
Ms. Seema Sah, learned counsel for Uttarakhand Pharmacy Council
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the intervener.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. These intra-court appeals are directed
against the judgment dated 25.08.2025 rendered by
learned Single Judge in WPSS No.2511/2024 and
connected matters, whereby the writ petitions filed by
the appellants, seeking a mandamus to allow them to
appear in the selection for appointment as Pharmacist
in Labour Department, was dismissed.
2. As per the applicable Rules, a candidate must
possess Diploma in Pharmacy for appointment as
Pharmacist in ESI Corporation run hospitals.
Admittedly, appellants-writ petitioners possessed
Bachelor's Degree in Pharmacy (B. Pharma) and thus
they do not meet the eligibility condition as mentioned
in the Rules. Appellants-writ petitioners argued before
the learned Single Judge that since B. Pharma is a
higher qualification than Diploma in Pharmacy,
therefore, right to be considered for appointment
cannot be denied to them and their candidature has to
be accepted for appointment as Pharmacist.
2026:UHC:80-DB
3. Learned Single Judge by relying upon a
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "Zahoor Ahmed Rather and others v.
Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others" reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 307 held that merely by possessing a
qualification which may be treated as higher than the
one required by the Rules, one would not become
eligible. Para 27 of the judgment rendered in Zahoor
Ahmed Rather (supra) is reproduced below:-
"27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post, the
State, as employer, may legitimately bear in mind several
features including the nature of the job, the aptitudes
requisite for the efficient discharge of duties, the
functionality of a qualification and the content of the
course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of a
qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to
assess the needs of its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain of
administrative decision-making. The State as a public
employer may well take into account social perspectives
that require the creation of job opportunities across the
societal structure. All these are essentially matters of
policy. Judicial review must tread warily. That is why the
decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S)
664] must be understood in the context of a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a higher
qualification which presupposes the acquisition of a lower
qualification was considered to be sufficient for the post. It
was in the context of specific rule that the decision in Jyoti
K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission,
2026:UHC:80-DB
(2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned."
4. We concur with the view taken by learned
Single Judge. Law is well settled that when the Rules
prescribe a qualification for appointment to a particular
post, then anyone who does not possess that
qualification cannot be treated as eligible. In the
applicable rules, the only qualification prescribed is
Diploma in Pharmacy and there is nothing to indicate
that a candidate having any other qualification,
declared as equivalent to Diploma in Pharmacy, would
also be treated as eligible. Law is well settled that when
statue requires a thing to be done in a particular
manner that thing must be done in that manner or not
at all.
5. Since eligibility of a candidate has to be
determined with reference to the applicable Rules and
writ-petitioners are not eligible as per the Rules
applicable for the post of Pharmacist, therefore, learned
Single Judge was justified in refusing to grant the
prayer as made by the writ-petitioners in the writ
petition, thus, we do not find any scope for
interference.
2026:UHC:80-DB
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-writ
petitioners then submits that the State Government
had given an assurance in Writ Petition (S/B) No.486 of
2021 that the matter of amendment in the applicable
Rules is under consideration.
7. In that view, we permit the appellants-writ
petitioners to make representation to the State
Government. If representation is made by them within
two weeks from today, State Government shall take
decision thereupon, as per law, within six weeks
thereafter. Amendment, if any, carried out will apply
only prospectively and will not be applicable to the
pending selection.
8. With the aforesaid observations and direction,
appeals stand disposed of finally.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 03.01.2026
Rajni
