DINESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. All the petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions claim that they have passed their diploma course in pharmacy in different years from various recognised institutions and they have registered themselves with the U.P. Pharmacy Council in different years. They have preferred these petitions for quashing of an advertisement dated 12.11.2007 for recruitment as Pharmacist and for a mandate that selection be made yearwise.

(2.) EARLIER , the selections were being made under U.P. Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the 1980 Rules) and in view of Rule 15(2), the selection committee was obliged to prepare a list in order of merit according to the marks obtained by them in the diploma examinations. However, by misinterpretation of the provision, selections were being made yearwise and batchwise and not strictly in accordance to the merit, as envisaged in the said rule.

(3.) IT appears that about 800 diploma holders who had applied, filed several writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of this Court claiming that the recruitments should be held under the 1980 Rules. A learned Single Judge in the case of Sunil Kumar Rai & others vs. State of U.P. & others (Writ Petition no.7699 (SS) of 2007) treating it as the leading petition, alongwith several other petitions, vide its judgment dated 23.5.2008, held that the appointments could not be made under the 2002 Rules unless they were amended and, therefore, had to held under the 1980 Rules in the following words :