Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
IRSHAD ALI, J.
Shivendra Vashishtha – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Its Secy.Dept.Of Medical Edu.Lucknow – Respondent
Writ A No.5435 of 2010
Decided on : 04-07-2023
Pharmacist Appointment Issue - Appointment Procedure - DGME Act, Section 4(1)(a), 6(2)(b) - The court discussed the appointment procedure for the post of Pharmacist in Government Medical College, Kannauj, and the authority of the DGME to fill vacancies in any Government Medical College. The court highlighted the discriminatory policy adopted by the respondents and emphasized that if similarly situated persons were permitted to join the post under the same appointment letter, there was no reason to not permit the petitioner to join. The court issued a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to look into the matter and allow the petitioner to join if his case was akin to the aforementioned persons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to allow him to work as a Pharmacist based on an appointment letter issued in 2009. The respondents had not allowed the petitioner to join the post, citing technical objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment was similar to that of other individuals who were permitted to join the post, and there was no valid reason to deny the petitioner's joining. The court issued a writ commanding the respondent to look into the matter and allow the petitioner to join if his case was akin to the aforementioned persons.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appointment procedure, discriminatory policy, and the petitioner's right to join the post based on the appointment letter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the discriminatory treatment of the petitioner compared to similarly situated individuals and the lack of valid reasons to deny the petitioner's joining.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and a writ in the nature of mandamus was issued commanding the respondent to look into the matter and allow the petitioner to join if his case was akin to the aforementioned persons.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Vishal Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondent - State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Pharmacist in pursuance of appointment order dated 24.02.2009 with a direction to the respondents to issue joining letter to the petitioner with a further prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 15.07.2010 and to allow the petitioner to work on the post in the light of judgments and orders dated 16.07.2010, 22.02.2010 & 23.03.2010.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:
| Sr. No. | Relevant Facts of the Case |
| a. | An advertisement was issued on 29.08.2008 by the Director General of Medical Education and Training (for short, "DGME"), Lucknow for the post of Pharmacist in Government Medical College, Kannauj. |
| b. | On 21.01.2009, a notification was issued that all the applicants who possess 62% marks in the diploma of pharmacy shall appear on 28.01.2009 to 03.02.2009. |
| c. | On 02.02.2009, a call letter was sent to the petitioner with other six persons by the DGME to appear in the interview for the post of Pharmacist and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner appeared in the interview. |
| d. | On 18.02.2009, a letter was endorsed to DGME by the Principal of Medical College, Azamgarh asking to fill the different posts from the waiting list of Medical College, Kannauj. |
| e. | On 24.02.2009, an appointment letter to the petitioner along with other six persons was issued by the Medical College, Kannauj to join on the post of Pharmacist in Medical College, Azamgarh. Thereafter, the petitioner was not allowed to join, however, four persons were allowed to join in pursuance to the said appointment letter. |
| f. | On 22.05.2009, the appointment of the four persons, who had join the services, was cancelled. |
| g. | On 25.06.2009, Hon'ble High Court has stayed the cancellation order dated 22.05.2009 and the four persons were allowed to rejoin on 04.11.2009. |
| h. | On 15.07.2010, the petitioner made representation to the concerned authorities, which is lying pending consideration and no order has been passed till date. |
| i. | Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. |
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that appointment of the petitioner was made after following due procedure and the petitioner has faced selection committee and appointment letter has been issued to him and on the ground of any lapse / technical objection on the part of the respondents, the petitioner should not be deprived.
5. He further submitted that there was no allegation against the petitioner for concealment or fraud, therefore, he should not be paralyzed by not allowing him to join the post.
6. He next submitted that name of the petitioner finds place at serial No.4 in the appointment letter issued to the petitioner along with six other persons. He submitted that under the order of this Hon'ble Court, four persons have been permitted to re-join the said post except the petitioner and in this regard the petitioner has made representation also, which is lying pending and no action has been taken thereupon. Therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to adopt pick and choose formula adopting discriminatory policy by depriving the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional C.S.C. submitted that the advertisement dated 29.08.2008 was published with regard to posts including the post of Pharmacist for appointing the candidates in Medical College, Kannau
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of discriminatory policy in allowing individuals to join a post under the same appointment letter.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
