Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(ORI) 11638
ORISSA HIGH COURT
DEVADATTA BARIK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ODISHA – Respondent
WPC(OAC)/3249/2015
Candidates with higher qualifications than the prescribed qualification in an advertisement for a post are eligible to apply and be considered for the post.
Headnote:
PHARMACIST - RECRUITMENT - ELIGIBILITY - HIGHER QUALIFICATION - [The court held that candidates with higher qualifications than the prescribed qualification in an advertisement for the post of Pharmacist are eligible to apply and be considered for the post.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who possessed the qualification of Bachelor in Pharmacy (B. Pharma), were denied the opportunity to apply for the post of Pharmacist in the district of Cuttack due to the stipulation in the advertisement that the prescribed qualification was Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma). The petitioners challenged this requirement, arguing that their higher qualification made them eligible for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners possessed higher qualifications than the prescribed qualification in the advertisement and that there was no legal basis for excluding them from consideration. The court relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., which held that persons with higher qualifications can make their applications, even if the post advertised allows candidates with lesser qualification to make their application.
Issues: 1. Whether candidates with higher qualifications than the prescribed qualification in an advertisement for the post of Pharmacist are eligible to apply and be considered for the post? 2. Whether the petitioners, who possessed the qualification of Bachelor in Pharmacy (B. Pharma), were eligible to apply for the post of Pharmacist in the district of Cuttack, despite the stipulation in the advertisement that the prescribed qualification was Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma)?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were eligible to apply for the post of Pharmacist despite not having the prescribed qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy, as they possessed higher qualifications. The court relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puneet Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., which held that persons with higher qualifications can make their applications, even if the post advertised allows candidates with lesser qualification to make their application.
Final Decision: The court directed the Opposite Party No.4 to award the prescribed mark in favor of the petitioners for their possessing qualification of B. Pharma as has been awarded in favor of the candidates with D. Pharma qualification. After the award of such a mark, if it is found that the petitioners have secured the cut-off mark for their selection, then necessary follow-up action will be taken by the Opposite Party No.4 by providing an appointment to the petitioners as against any available vacancies.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OAC) Nos.3249 & 3250 of 2015
In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
………………
WPC(OAC) No.3249 of 2015
Devadatta Barik
….
Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
….
Opposite Parties
For Petitioners
:
M/s.Sujata Jena, S.Mohanty,
G.B.Jena, B.P. Chhulasingh
& A.K.Das.
For Opp. Parties :
Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.A.P.Das.
WPC(OAC) No.3250 of 2015
Prasanta Kumar Barik
….
Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
….
Opposite Parties
For Petitioners
:
M/s.Sujata Jena, S.Mohanty,
G.B.Jena, B.P. Chhulasingh
& A.K.Das.
For Opp. Parties :
Addl. Standing Counsel
Mr.A.P.Das.
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:14.12.2022 and Date of Order: 03.01.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// 2 //
Page 2 of 11
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1.
Since issue involved in both the cases is identical and
the challenge made in the writ petitions are also similar,
both the matters are heard analogously and disposed of
vide the present common order.
Both the Writ Petitions have been filed inter alia for a
direction
on
the
Opposite
Parties
to
consider
the
candidature of the Petitioners for the post of Pharmacist in
the district of Cuttack as per the advertisement issued
under Annexure-1.
2.
The factual backdrop giving rise to filing of the
present case is that even though both the Petitioners
posses the qualification of Bachelor in Pharmacy, but in
view of the stipulation contained in the advertisement
issued on 22.07.2015 under Annexure-1 for recruitment to
the post of Pharmacist, they were made ineligible to make
their application on the ground that the prescribed
qualification was Diploma in Pharmacy. The Petitioners
challenging the same approached the Tribunal in O.A
No.3249(C) of 2015 and 3250(C) of 2015. The Tribunal
while issuing notice of the matter vide order dated
03.09.2015 passed the following order:-
// 3 //
Page 3 of 11
“Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. S. Mohanty
and learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. H.K.Panigrahi.
Admit. Issue notice. Counter be filed within four weeks.
Rejoinder, if any, be filed two weeks thereafter.
List this case after six weeks.
So far as prayer for interim relief is concerned, the
respondents are directed to allow the applicant to participate
in the selection process for the post of Pharmacists, but his
result be kept in sealed cover.
Send copies”.
2.1. In terms of the order passed by the Tribunal on
03.09.2015, though the Petitioners were allowed to
participate in the selection process, but the results were not
published and kept in sealed cover.
2.2. It is contended that since the Petitioners in both the
cases possess the qualification of B. Pharma, which is a
higher qualification than the prescribed qualification
indicated in the advertisement under Annexure-1 i.e. D.
Pharm, the action of the Opposite Party No.1 in debarring
the Petitioners who possess higher qualification than that
of the prescribed qualification is not legally sustainable.
The Petitioners in support of their eligibility submitted that
in respect of similar advertisement issued by AIIMS,
Bhubaneswar on 28.02.2014 under Annexure-4-Series, the
prescribed qualification was degree in Pharmacy from the
recognized University. Similarly in respect of another
advertisement issued by the Government of India, Ministry
// 4 //
Page 4 of 11
of Home Affairs under Annexure-4-Series, the prescribed
qualification for the post of Pharmacist was degree or
Diploma in Pharmacy from any recognized institutions of
the Central or State Government. Not only that in re
