The main legal principle established is that the State's interpretation and application of rules must not unjustly disadvantage individuals and that the State has the discretion to define 'Batch' for appointment purposes based on the year of final examination.

Vivek Chaudhary, J.

These writ petitions are filed challenging the list for appointment dated 26.7.2016, issued by the Director Para-Medical and Health Services, U.P., of Pharmacy Diploma Holders. The said list is claimed to be issued as per and in compliance of the order of Apex Court passed in an earlier Special Leave Petition and contempt petitions, a fact disputed by the petitioners.

2. The dispute of pharmacists was decided by this Court by its judgment dated 4.5.2009 in Special Appeal No. 377 of 2008, which thereafter reached the Apex Court and was decided by judgment dated 3.10.2010 in leading Special Leave Petition No. 20558 of 2009 along with other connected matters (reported in 2010 (9) SCC 52 State of U.P. and others. v. Santosh Kumar Mishra and another). Some of the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment would explain the facts and dispute involved :-

"1. The same criteria differently applied at two different points of time leading to different results and consequences, is the problem we are faced with in these special leave petitions. The same principles which were applied in the case of the respondents to deny them the benefit of appointment, were not given effect to when it came to their turn to get the benefit thereof.

2. In order to appreciate this unusual situation, it is necessary to relate some of the relevant facts of these cases. The respondents have passed the diploma course in Pharmacy from different institutions which have been recognized by the Pharmacy Council of India and are also registered with the State Pharmacy Council of U.P. Their claim is for selection and appointment to the post of Pharmacist, which is governed by the U.P. Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "1980 Rules").

3. According to respondents, under Rule 15(2) of the 1980 Rules, all diploma holders were required to be appointed against the vacancies which became available in each recruitment year by first appointing those Pharmacists who had obtained their diplomas earlier. They claim that appointment to the post of Pharmacist should be made batch wise from each year and that the vacancies which had accrued, should be filled up by giving appointment to those Pharmacists according to the dates on which they had obtained their diplomas, irrespective of their merit. According to the respondents, till those belonging to the earlier batches were not considered and given appointments in such vacancies, the diploma-holders of the subsequent batches should not be given appointment, irrespective of their merit.

4. The aforesaid controversy was triggered by an advertisement dated 12-11-2007, whereby 766 vacancies were advertised for being filled up by diploma holders. The advertisement provided that the recruitment would be made in accordance with the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2000, as amended by the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003, and the relevant Service Rules in force with regard to educational qualifications and other conditions of service.

5. According to the respondents, on an interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the 1980 Rules by the State Government, they were entitled to be selected and appointed first on the vacancies advertised, as they belonged to previous batches and were denied appointment by the State Government earlier on the plea that notwithstanding their merit being superior to those of some of the diploma holders, who had obtained diploma prior in point of time, the latter candidates were to be given appointment first. As a result, those diploma holders, who had obtained diploma before the Respondents, were adjusted against the vacancies first, irrespective of their merit vis-a-vis the diploma holders of subsequent batches and the said practice was continued till 2002. However, when the fresh vacanc