K.M. Joseph, J.

1. Since Appeals arise out of writ petitions, which, in turn, relate to selection to the post of Pharmacist and as they generate common question, we dispose of the Appeals by the following common judgment.

2. Writ Petition No. 815 of 2012 (S/S) was the first writ petition filed in this case. It was filed on 25th June, 2012. Petitioners in the said writ petition were possessing the qualification of Diploma in Veterinary Pharmacy. They sought the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the condition prescribed in sub-clause (b) of paragraph no. 1 of the advertisement dated 19.05.2012 issued by the respondent no. 2.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the procedure of selection on the posts of Veterinary Pharmacists adopted by the respondents, as arbitrary, illegal and against the Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Service Rules, 2010.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to fill the post of Veterinary Pharmacist advertised vide advertisement dated 19.5.2012 strictly in accordance with the qualification prescribed under the Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Service Rules, 2010.”

3. The learned Single Judge passed an interim order permitting the selection to go on, but final result not to be published. Thereafter, the very same writ petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 965 of 2012 (S/S). Therein, the writ petitioners sought the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Rule 7(1)(b) contained in Part 4 of Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011 which were enforced vide notification dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the Rule 7(1)(b) contained in Part 4 of Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Service (Amendment) Rules, 2011 which were enforced vide notification dated 12.12.2011 as ultra-virus.

(ii-a) Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the rule 14(5) of Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Services (Amendment) Rules, 2011 which were enforced vide notification dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition).

(ii-b) Issue a writ order of direction in nature of mandamus declaring the rule 14(5) of Uttarakhand Veterinary Pharmacists Services (Amendment) Rules, 2011 is hit by Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.”

4. As far as the third writ petition, which has given rise to this Bunch of Appeals, namely, Writ Petition No. 1091 of 2013 (S/S) is concerned, the writ petitioner was a Degree Holder in Allopathic Pharmacy. He sought the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the application form of the petitioner for the post of veterinary Pharmacist in Veterinary Department as he possesses the higher qualification in the same stream.”

5. The State defended the Rule and also opposed the relief sought, otherwise by filing counter affidavit. The stand of the State in defense of the Rule, when it was challenged in Writ Petition No. 965 of 2012 (S/S) was essentially that for the four posts of Veterinary Pharmacists, prior to 2010, the minimum educational qualification for the post of Veterinary Pharmacist was Intermediate (Biology) and the candidates selected for this post were provided two years training at the Departments training centre at Pashulok, Rishikesh by the Veterinary Officers of the Department. Thereafter, due to lack of proper and modern facilities at the said training centre, a high level committee was constituted comprising of the Additional Secretary, the official of the Department of the Animal Husbandry, Director of Health and Family Welfare a