Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

1. The petitioners, before this Court, have challenged the selection process which has been initiated for the selection/appointment on the post of Veterinary Pharmacist in Animal Husbandry Department of Government of Uttarakhand. In Writ Petition No.815 (SS) of 2012, petitioners have challenged the advertisement dated 19th May, 2012 and in Writ Petition No.965 (SS) of 2012, petitioners have challenged Rule 7 (1) (b), as well as Rule 14 (5) of the Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Service (Amendment) Rules 2011 (from herein after referred to as “the Amended Rules of 2011”), under which such selection is being made. In Writ Petition No. 1091 (SS) of 2013, petitioner has challenged non-consideration of his candidature for the post of Veterinary Pharmacist pursuant to advertisement dated 19th May, 2012, on the ground that petitioner is having “Degree” in Veterinary Pharmacy and not a “Diploma” as provided in the Rules, but since Degree is higher qualification than a Diploma in the same stream, his candidature must also be considered. Since these matters are closely interlinked with each other, all of them are being heard and are decided by this judgment.

2. All the petitioners have passed Intermediate examination with Biology subject and thereafter have done a “Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy” from “Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur (Rajasthan).

3. When the petitioners had approached this Court by way of filing the Writ Petition No. 815 (SS) of 2012, case of the petitioners was that under the Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Service Rules, 2010 (from herein after referred to as “the Rules of 2010”), following was the qualifications for appointment to the post of “Pharmacist” in Animal Husbandry Department. These are:

Intermediate with Biology and the Technical qualification was Diploma in “Pharmacy”.

4. An important fact here is that under the Rules of 2010, what was required was simply a “Diploma in Pharmacy”. In other words, the Rules of 2010 did not distinguish between one having a Diploma in “Allopathy”, “Homeopathic” or “Ayurvedic”, or any other pathy for that matter. All that was required was a “Diploma in Pharmacy”. However, when advertisement was issued by the respondents inviting applications from the eligible candidates, the qualification which was prescribed was not a “Diploma in Pharmacy” but it was a “Diploma in Allopathic Pharmacy”. This caused the filing of Writ Petition No. 815 (SS) of 2012. As per the advertisement the Diploma required was only in “Allopathy”, thereafter, candidates such as the petitioners (who have done their Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy), were ineligible from applying for such posts. This Court in Writ Petition No. 815 (SS) of 2012, an interim order was granted to the petitioners on 26.06.2012 which is still operating, and by which selection and the subsequent appointments have all been stayed.

5. In its Counter affidavit, the State Government has rebutted the averments of the petitioners and said that the amendment in the Rules of 2010 was made in the year 2011, by which the technical qualification of “Diploma in Pharmacy” was amended to “Diploma in (Allopathy) Pharmacy”. Therefore, the case of the respondents before this Court in Writ Petition No. 815 (SS) of 2012 is that the petitioners have not come before this Court with clean hands as they have challenged the advertisement on the ground of violation of Rules of 2010, which infact stood amended in 2011 (before filing of the petition) and by the said amendment earlier qualification of Diploma in “Pharmacy” was changed to diploma in “Allopathy Pharmacy”.

6. Meanwhile, petitioners have also challenged the amended Rules in Writ Petition No. 965 (SS) of 2012. Since the issue involved in both the writ petition is interlinked with each other, hence both these writ petitions are being heard and decided together.

7. What goes to the root of the matter is the Amended Rules of 2011. It is necessary to