Recruitment Rules cannot be at variance with the Regulations prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India for essential qualifications for appointment as a Pharmacist.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and its functionaries challenging the order dated October 31, 2022 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', hereinafter) has allowed the original application filed by the respondents herein and directed as under:

"In the light of the facts and discussion detailed above, we cannot sustain the impugned orders which are accordingly set aside. The applicants shall be deemed to have been continuing to hold the post of Pharmacist from the date of their appointment. As far as the Applicant-no. 1 is concerned, the competent authority amongst the respondents shall pass an appropriate order reinstating him with effect from the date his services were terminated and further specify that pursuant to reinstatement, he would be deemed to have been in continuous and uninterrupted service. He is entitled to all the consequential benefits subsequent to his reinstatement. These benefits, in the normal course, would have been awarded to the Applicant no.1 only on notional basis; however, we have to take into consideration the fact that the termination has been held to be illegal. Moreover, respondent nos. 2 & 3, who are identically placed, continue to hold the post by way of protection of an interim order and have been drawing all the financial and other benefits by virtue of the said interim order. Therefore, denial of the same benefits to Applicant no. 1 would amount to discriminatory treatment. Accordingly, the consequential benefits shall be on actual basis, subject to the condition that the Applicant no.1 shall furnish an appropriate certificate/affidavit to the respondents that during this period he has not been employed elsewhere. These directions shall be complied with within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

2. The challenge of the respondents, before the Tribunal, was primarily to the order of termination of their services on the ground that they did not possess the required qualification set forth in the relevant Recruitment Rules.

3. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was, pursuant to the selection conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (`DSSSB', hereinafter) for the post of Pharmacist, they were appointed in terms of offer of appointment dated July 10, 2020. Subsequently, they were issued a show cause notice as to why their services be not terminated on the ground that they did not possess the essential qualifications as per the Recruitment Rules. The issue which fell for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the respondents were possessing the essential qualifications mentioned in the Recruitment Rules.

4. It was the case of the respondents before the Tribunal that they passed 10+2 in Science stream with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics as the subjects, whereas, the case of the petitioners was that Biology is supposed to be one of the essential subjects in terms of the Recruitment Rules and which respondents did not possess. According to the petitioners, the Recruitment Rules mention Physics/Chemistry/Biology in brackets () after the words 10+2 with science stream, making it evident that science stream in the context of an essential qualification for the post of Pharmacist requires the candidate to have pursued all the three subjects in 10+2, i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

5. Concedingly, the respondents herein had stated that they studied Mathematics instead of Biology and possessed the essential qualifications. The issue had earlier been deliberated in detail before the Tribunal in O.A. 1310/2009, wherein the said O.A. was disposed by the Tribunal, holding that essential qualification for the post of Pharmacist, insofar as, it denies the candidates having Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, the right to hold the post, is illegal, and had accordingly set it aside. The said judgment was set