- (1.)Before adverting to the facts of this case, we make it clear that we propose to pass orders only in the above LA. Nos. 4-5 of 2013 and LA. Nos. 5 of 2014 in Contempt Petition(C) No. 269/2012 and in LA. Nos. 1-2 in Contempt Petition(C) No. 115/2014. All other connected applications and contempt petitions when listed on 14.2.2014, the following order came to be passed:
I.A. No. 5 (for direction) in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 269 of 2014 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20558 of 2009 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 115/2014

Issue Notice.

Personal appearance of the alleged contemnors is dispensed with for the present.

List the cases for final disposal on 25th March, 2014.

Rest of the matters

List all the contempt petitions along with applications for orders after the decision in LA. No. 5 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 269 of 2012 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20558 of 2009 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2014.

(2.)Therefore, in the first instance, we wish to dispose of LA. No. 5 of 2014 in Contempt Petition(C) No. 269/2012 along with Contempt Petition(C) No. 115/2014 and I.A. Nos. 1-2 in that Contempt Petition and thereafter, pass appropriate orders in the other connected applications, as well as, Contempt Petitions. I.A. No. 5 of 2014 has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh with the following prayer:
Issue direction to the Principal Secretary, Law, Govt. of U.P. to recall his order dated 27.9.2013 and hear the applicants (State of U.P.) after giving fresh notice to all the parties, and pass an appropriate order/declare the Number of vacancies available on the post of Pharmacists;

(3.)In order to consider the prayer of the applicants, it is necessary to briefly trace the background of this litigation which ultimately culminated in a judgment of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Santosh Kumar Mishra and Anr., 2010 9 SCC 52. The issue pertains to selection and appointment to the post of Pharmacist in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which was earlier governed by the Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1980"). The above Rules of 1980 came to be replaced by the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group 'C Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2000 as amended by U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003. There was an advertisement dated 12.11.2007 whereby 766 vacancies were advertised for being filled up by Pharmacy diploma holders. There was a claim made by such diploma holders up to the year 2002 that their appointments were to be made under the Rules of 1980, even as regards the 766 vacancies advertised in the year 2007. The issue went before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad and the diploma holders on being aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, took it up by way of an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench summarized the issue in the following words:
9. xxx

A peculiar and a piquant situation has arisen in the instant case, where it is not the case that an aspirant of the higher post in service on becoming eligible for promotion or a person seeking direct appointment on the date when he is to be considered for such a promotion or appointment, seeks to interpret the rule of recruitment in a particular manner, looking to the past practice, to his advantage, but here is a case where the Appellants were excluded from consideration of their appointment at the relevant time earlier, by interpreting the rule to their disadvantage, and were made to believe that likewise their candidature shall be considered later on, for which various circulars and instructions were also issued by the State Government, but when their turn came for getting employment, they were again being put out of consideration, by interpreting the rule in a different manner.