1. - This bunch of writ petitions pertains to selection to the post of Pharmacist. The respondent No.3 - Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (for short "the RUHS") issued an advertisement calling for the application for the aforesaid post. Petitioners submitted their application forms, however, challenge to the selection has been made on following grounds:

(i)The candidates having qualification of Bachelor in Pharmacy (for short "B. Pharma") and Master of Pharmacy (for short "M.Pharma") have wrongly been held to be eligible for the post of Pharmacist.

(ii)The selection to post of Pharmacist should be conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "RPSC") and not by the RUHS.

(iii)Award of bonus marks for experience to the candidates working in state service or in the services of certain schemes is illegal.

(iv)The unfilled seats meant for ex-serviceman is to be filled by general category.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that rules of Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short "Rules of 1965") provides for the qualification for the post of Pharmacist, which is Diploma in Pharmacy (for short "D.Pharma") and registration with Rajasthan Pharmacy Council. The qualification of B. Pharma and M. Pharma is not included as one of the qualification for the post of Pharmacist yet the respondents are permitting candidates having the aforesaid qualification in violation of Rules of 1965. A reference of recruitment held by other agencies is given wherein qualification provided for the post of Pharmacist is D.Pharma and not B.Pharma or M. Pharma.

3. It is further submitted that B.Pharma and M. Pharma cannot be said to be higher qualification than D.Pharma. A candidate undertaking D.Pharma is to underwent training from time to time whereas such training is not provided in B. Pharma and M. Pharma courses. The respondents have considered B. Pharma and M. Pharma candidates to be eligible treating those qualification higher than D.Pharma in ignorance to the syllabus set out for three different courses. Accordingly, the respondents be restrained to consider any candidate for selection, who is not having minimum qualification of D.Pharma. To simplify the aforesaid, a candidate with B. Pharma and M. Pharma qualification should not be treated as eligible for the post of Pharmacist.

4. Averting on the second issue, a reference of Article 320 of Constitution of India is given to indicate that selection in State or Central Services has to be by the Public Service Commission (for short "PSC") and not by the RUHS. The respondents have ignored the aforesaid provision while allowing selection to the post of Pharmacist by RUHS, thus issuance of advertisement for selection by the RUHS is without authority of law.

5. It is lastly urged that award of bonus marks for experience to the candidates working in State Service or under National Rural Health Mission Programme (for short "NRHM") is illegal. The advertisement provided two bonus marks for each year's experience to such candidates with ceiling of 10 marks. The respondents later on made amendment to provide four bonus marks for each year with the ceiling of 20 marks. The award of bonus marks for experience to those, who are already in state service or working under NRHM and other schemes is wholly illegal.

6. Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 , it is submitted that bonus marks cannot be awarded for recruitment but can be for regularization. In the aforesaid background, award of bonus marks goes contrary to the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Specific reference of para No.53 of the aforesaid judgment is given to substantiate the argument/s. The respondents be restrained to award bonus marks towards experience either to those working with the State Government or under the Schemes like the NRHM or other scheme included by way of amendment in the Rules and