Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Jul 2019WPSS/184/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged an advertisement limiting pharmacy recruitment to diploma holders. The court noted that with the selection process already completed for 21 candidates, the challenge to the advertisement became infructuous. The petition was dismissed, but the petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the select list.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to challenge the select list dated 30th May, 2019.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Education and Admissions | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 184 of 2019

¶2

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

¶3

Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶4

Mr. P.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶5

Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶6

The petitioners are the degree holder Pharmacist. They have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the advertisement dated 15^th October, 2018, by virtue of which, the respondent No. 2 had initiated the process of selection for the recruitment of Pharmacist as per the Rules contained under the U.P. Pharmacist Service Rules, 1980. As per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1980, the qualification, which was required for a candidate to participate in the process of selection was diploma in Pharmacy and accordingly, as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1980, the said qualification was incorporated as qualification in the advertisement dated 15^th October, 2018, where the diploma holders were held to be eligible and qualified to participate in the selection process.

¶7

The petitioners have questioned the same on the ground that since they are holder of degree in pharmacy, they also be permitted to participate in the process of selection.

¶8

There have been an earlier set of proceedings almost involving an identical question, which was culminated by the Coordinate Bench vide its judgment dated 17^th April, 2017, as rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1421 of 2016, Vinod Kumar and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein, on the basis of the stand taken by the State that the inclusion of the petitioners in the recruitment process, there is a proposal to

¶9

amend the Rules by the correspondence dated 24^th May, 2007.

¶10

Learned Brief Holder submits that subsequent to the said reference, which was proposed for amending the Rules, have been referred to the Director, but, the fact remains that still the amendment have not been carried in the basic qualification, which has been provided in the Rules of 1980.

¶11

Apart from it, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, in pursuance to the impugned advertisement, the selection process has already culminated resulting into the selection of about 21 candidates by virtue of the select list dated 30^th May, 2019.

¶12

In view of the fact the very challenge to the advertisement has now lost its significance in view of the subsequent selection process, which was culminated on 30^th May, 2019, the Writ Petition as such for the reliefs which has been claimed therein, has been rendered infructuous. The same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

¶13

However, dismissal of the Writ Petition as having rendered infructuous will not preclude the petitioners from challenging the said select list of 30^th May, 2019, as issued by respondent No. 2, he is granted liberty to raise all questions.

¶14

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶15

Dated 08.07.2019 Shiv

¶16

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

Vinod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wazid Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Smt. Suman Devi Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Anees Ahmad Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Smt Saraswati Devi and Others Vs Santosh Singh and Others

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Jagdish and Others

Mohd Umar Vs Shabnam