JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) These three Special Leave Petitions are
directed against the judgment and order dated12.7.2011, passed by the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in C.P. No.2209 of 2009,
affirming the order of the learned Single Judge
which had been upheld by the Division Bench of the
High Court regarding the appointment of Pharmacists
in the State of Uttar Pradesh. So as to understand
how the matter reached the High Court, it is
necessary to set out a few facts which led to the
filing of the Writ Petitions.
(2.) By way of an advertisement dated 12.11.2007,
766 vacancies were advertised for being filled up
by diploma holders in Pharmacy. The advertisement
provided that the recruitment could be done as per
the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group
'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service
Commission) Rules, 2000. The said advertisement
led to controversies as to how the appointments
were to be filled up.
(3.) According to the Respondents, the
interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the U.P.
Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980, hereinafter
referred to as the "1980 Rules", required the
diploma holders to be appointed against the
vacancies which became available in each
recruitment year, by first appointing those
Pharmacists who had obtained their diplomas
earlier. It was their claim that appointment to the
post of Pharmacist could be made batch-wise from
each year and that the vacancies which had accrued
were required to be filled up by giving appointment
to those Pharmacists according to the dates on
which they obtained their diplomas, irrespective of
their merit. According to the Respondents, on an
interpretation of Rule 15(2) of the 1980 Rules by
the State Government, they were entitled to be
selected and appointed first in respect of the
vacancies advertised, as they belonged to previous
batches and had been denied appointment by the
State Government earlier on the plea that
notwithstanding their merit being superior to some
of the diploma holders, those who had obtained
diplomas prior to the Respondents, had to be
adjusted against the vacancies first, irrespective
of their merit. It was submitted that those
diploma holders who had obtained their diplomas
before the Respondents, should be adjusted first
against the vacancies available, irrespective of
their merit, the diploma holders of
subsequent batches and the said practice was
continued till 2002.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.