This writ- petition raises an interesting question of some importance. The question is as to whether a candidate having the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy i.e. B. Pharma, which is a higher qualification, is not eligible to compete for the post of Pharmacist, for which the qualification prescribed is a Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma). The State respon#31;dents think that such a candidate is not eligible. Hence the writ petition.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly noted.

3. The petitioners, who are 16 in number, have obtained the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy (B. Pharma), which is a course of 4(four) years duration, from recognized institutions. Thereafter, they got themselves registered under the Mizoram State Pharmacy Council constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Therefore, they are registered pharm#31;acists.

4. The Govt. of Mizoram in the Health and Family Welfare Department issued advertise#31;ment on 09.09.2011 inviting applications for filling up 15 vacant posts of Pharmacist under the said Department. The qualification prescribed is, amongst others, two years course Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognised institution. The petitioners applied for the said posts. But the State respondents put up a list of applications which were rejected. The names of the petitioners figure in the said list. The reason given for rejection of the applications is non production of 2 years course Diploma Certificate. The Mizoram State Pharmacy Council moved the Government by way of a representation with the request that the degree holders should also be permitted to appear in the selection for the post of Pharmacist. As the same did not elicit any response, the petitioners moved this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. This Court by order dated 31.10.2011 while issuing notice, directed the respondents as an interim measure to allow the petitioners to appear in the written test but not to publish the result of the written test without the leave of this Court.

6. The State respondents have filed their counter affidavit. They have averred that under the relevant recruitment rules, the prescribed qualification for the post of Pharmacist is a Diploma in Pharmacy, which is also reflected in the advertisement. Since the petitioners do not possess the prescribed qualification, their applications were rightly rejected.

7. A batch of diploma holders on being permitted by this Court have entered appearance as interveners in the present proceeding. They have also filed their counter affidavit wherein they have supported the contention of the State respondents, They have stated that the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Pharmacist is Diploma in Pharmacy and a candidate to be eligible for appointment to the said post must have the said minimum qualification even if he possesses a higher qualification.

8. The petitioners in their separate rejoinder affidavits have reiterated the contentions made in the writ petition. In addition they have asserted that since they are holding the degree of Bachelor in Pharmacy which is a higher qualification for the post of Pharmacist than the minimum qualification prescribed, they are entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Pharmacist. Referring to the duties and responsibilities of Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2010, the petitioners have contended that the degree holders are better qualified than the diploma holders for appointment to the post of Pharmacist.

9. I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Sr. advocate appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram for the State respondents as well as Mr. N. Sailo, learned Sr. Advocate for the interveners.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decision of the State respondents to disqualify the petitioners from competing for the post of Pharmacist is palpably wrong inasmuch as the petitioners are degree holders, which is a highe