Disposed

Parshuram Gautam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024/10424/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions for the appointment of petitioners as Pharmacists based on merit irrespective of batch year. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider pending representations and decide them within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite party No. 2 to consider and decide the representations dated 4.9.2024, 3.9.2024 and 3.9.2024 expeditiously within two months of the order.

Parshuram Gautam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74687

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10424 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Parshuram Gautam And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Services U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Krishna Yadav,Mansha Shukla,Vivek Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

In the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioners as Pharmacist (Allopathic) in the State of U.P. on the basis of merit irrespective of their batch year in accordance with the manner indicated and directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 3.8.2010 passed in SLP (C) No.20558 of 2009 and orders dated 27.3.2012, 14.8.2012 and 27.11.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No.347 of 2010.

¶8

It has been submitted that the petitioners obtained diploma in Pharmacy and got themselves registered with U.P. Pharmacy Council on 22.10.2003, 19.9.2006 and 19.9.2006 respectively. Accordingly, they claim that they should have been considered and appointed on the post of Pharmacist by State of U.P. It is further submitted that according to Uttar Pradesh Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980 and as per Rule 15 sub rule 2 selection committee has to prepare the list of candidates in order of merit, based on marks obtained by them in diploma examination.

¶9

It is stated that the controversy was initially decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Rai and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.7699 (S/S) of 2007 which held that selection has to be advertised as per the provisions of Rule 15 (2) of the Rules of 1980 on the basis of the marks obtained in Pharmacy Diploma Examination, irrespective of the year in which candidate has appeared in Diploma Examination.

¶10

An appeal was preferred before Division Bench which was decided on 4.5.2009 where it was held that the cases for appointment shall be considered in accordance with preexisting practice for considering their appointment on the basis

¶11

of their merit taking their batches into consideration as was being done earlier but this process would be available for the appellants and they would be accommodated if they are otherwise found eligible and the remaining vacancies would be filled in by following Rule 15 (2) strictly as directed by the Single Judge.

¶12

According to the petitioners, the matter traveled upto the Supreme Court and was decided in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another VS. Santosh Kumar Mishra and another, (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 52 where the judgment of the Division Bench was upheld.

¶13

It is in aforesaid circumstances that it has been submitted that the petitioners have right to be considered for appointment on the post of Pharmacist irrespective of the batches on the basis of merit list.

¶14

After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have represented to opposite party No.2 which is pending and their grievances shall be substantially redressed in case opposite party No.2 is directed to consider and decide the same, expeditiously.

¶15

Learned Standing counsel doe snot oppose the prayer made by the petitioner.s

¶16

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to consider and decide the representations dated 4.9.2024, 3.9.2024 and 3.9.2024, as contained in Annexure No.10 to the writ petition, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioners.

¶17

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 RKM.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Parshuram Gautam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Gautam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hemant Kumar Sharma Vs Navdeep Shukla, Up-Zila Adhikari, Tehsil-Lalganj, Rae Bareli

Madhubala Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pustahar Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Seema Sachan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Women and Child Development Lko and 4 Others

Ram Prakash and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko and 3 Others

Parshuram Gautam and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Dinesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Addl.Chief Secy. Ayush Anubhag , Lko.