Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This batch of the cases relates to recruitment of the Pharmacists (Ayurvedic). All the petitions involve similar question of law. Therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience and narration of facts, Service Single No. 3350 of 2014 is taken as a lead petition.

2. The present batch of petitions has been filed by the petitioners, who did their Diploma in Ayurvedic Pharmacy. They are seeking a relief for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the select list dated 03rd July, 2014 for appointment on the posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacist.

3. The case has a chequered history. Hence, the facts of the case need a little elaboration.

4. The petitioners claim that they did their diploma between 1986 and 1993 and got themselves registered with the Board of Indian Medicines, Uttar Pradesh between the year 1985 and 1994. The appointments on the posts of Pharmacists (Ayurvedic) and Pharmacists (Unani) are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Ayurvedic and Unani Pharmacists Service Rules, 1991 (Rules, 1991). The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Commission (Subordinate Commission) was a recruiting agency for the said post as the post in question is a Class-III post. It is stated that the Subordinate Commission was dissolved in the year 1997 and no selection was made since 1991 till the year 2003. Some backlog vacancies of reserved quota were advertised in the year 2003, however, no selection was made for the general category candidates. It is further stated that although an advertisement was issued in the year 2000 for 500 posts of Pharmacists (Ayurvedic) and Pharmacists (Unani) yet no appointment could be made.

5. There is another set of rules, known as the Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 (Rules 1980), which govern the recruitment of the Pharmacists (Allopathic). A long drawn litigation in their respect was set at rest by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case. The judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court in the matter of the Pharmacists (Allopathic) have a material bearing on the dispute in hand, hence the facts of the litigation in the matter of Pharmacists in Allopathic need to be stated in a detail.

6. A dispute arose in respect of interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the Rules, 1980. The said rule reads as under:

“15. Procedure for Direct Recruitment.—(1) ***

(2) The Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates in order of merit, as disclosed by marks obtained by them in the diploma examination. If two or more candidates obtain equal marks, the Selection Committee shall arrange their names in order of merit on the basis of their general suitability for the post. The number of the names in the list shall be larger (but not larger by more than 25 per cent) than the number of the vacancies. The list so prepared shall hold good for one year only.”

7. Rule 15(2) of the Rules, 1980 was interpreted by the State Government in a manner that all diploma holders are accommodated/appointed in the vacancies, which become available in each recruitment year, by first accommodating the Pharmacists, who have obtained diploma prior to the Pharmacists, who have obtained diploma later on. Thus, it was a settled practice that the appointments of Pharmacists were to be made on the basis of their batches i.e. first who have cleared diploma course in the earlier batches irrespective of their merit.

8. On 12th November, 2007 an advertisement was issued inviting applications for filing up 766 vacant posts of Pharmacists in Allopathic. The advertisement provided that the recruitment shall be made in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2002 (Rules, 2002), as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group ‘C’ Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003 (Rules, 2003) and the relevant