JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. However, the facts of WP (S/S) No. 2511 of 2024 are being referred to, for the sake of convenience.

2. The short question which falls for determination in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who are Bachelor in Pharmacy (“B.Pharma.”) are eligible for their appointment to the post of Pharmacist, for which the educational qualification is Diploma in Pharmacy (“D. Pharma.”) from a recognized institution and registration with the State Pharmacy Council.

3. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The respondent no. 3, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board (“the Board”) by its advertisements dated 16.10.2024 and 19.10.2024 invited applications for the post of Pharmacists (Allopathic) in Labour Department and Pharmacist (Bhesaj) in Medical Department, respectively. As per the advertisement, the educational qualification for the post is that a candidate must possess D.Pharma. from a recognized institution and must also be registered with the Uttarakhand Pharmacy Council. In the case of Pharmacists (Bhesaj), along with D.Pharma, registration was necessary either in Uttarakhand Pharmacy Council or Uttarakhand Pharmacist Registration Tribunal. It is the case of the petitioners that they are B.Pharma. holders, but they have been denied permission to participate in the recruitment process on the ground that only the D.Pharma. holders are entitled to appear in the examination. It is also the case of the petitioners that in the earlier litigation, the State had given an assurance that they would include the qualification of B.Pharma. also for appointment to the post of Pharmacist and the proposal, in fact, has been sent by the Director General, Medical Health and Family Welfare of the State Government. It is further the case of the petitioners, that qualification as given in the advertisement is minimum qualification and since the petitioners are higher in qualification, they may not be denied permission for applying to the post of Pharmacists. Therefore, in all these petitions, the petitioners seek direction that the petitioners may be declared qualified and be permitted to appear and fill form in response to the advertisements dated 16.10.2024 and 19.10.2024 issued by the Board.

4. The respondent State has filed its counter affidavit and in para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Medical Health and Family Welfare Department has no jurisdiction in respect of the vacancies, requisition, direct recruitment, etc. on the posts under the Medical Education Department.

5. The Board has also filed its counter affidavit and in para 5, it is stated that all the petitioners are having Degree in Pharmacy and admittedly not having Diploma in Pharmacy, which is a required condition as per Clause 5 of the advertisement, therefore, candidature of the petitioners has rightly been rejected.

6. It may be noted that by the interim orders of this Court, the application form of the petitioners were directed to be provisionally accepted, but the Court had directed that the result shall not be declared till the disposal of the writ petitions.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in earlier in WP (S/B) No. 486 of 2021, Kiritika Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and others (“the first petition”), the State Government had given an assurance to the Court that they would change the rules by including B.Pharma. as one of the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Pharmacists, but till date the rules have not been amended; therefore, now the petitioners cannot be denied the opportunity to apply for the post of Pharmacists pursuant to the advertisements in question.

9. In the first petition, the Division Bench had taken no