B.Pharm Holders Not Eligible for Pharmacist Posts: Uttarakhand HC

The Court ruled that B.Pharm candidates are not eligible to apply for pharmacist positions in the state unless the recruitment rules are formally amended to include them.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Ravindra Maithani while hearing writ petitions filed by Om Prakash, Vinod Kumar, and others, who had challenged their exclusion from the pharmacist recruitment process advertised by the Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board (UMSSB) on October 16 and 19, 2024.

The Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board (“the Board”), by its advertisements dated 16.10.2024 and 19.10.2024, invited applications for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathic) in the Labour Department and Pharmacist (Bhesaj) in the Medical Department, respectively. As per the advertisement, the educational qualification for the post was that a candidate must possess a 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 the Uttarakhand Pharmacy Council or the Uttarakhand Pharmacist Registration Tribunal. It was the case of the petitioners that they were 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.

The petitioners futher submitted 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.

The petitioners added that the qualification as given in the advertisement is the 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 out the form in response to the advertisements dated 16.10.2024 and 19.10.2024 issued by the Board.

Responding to the above, the respondent State filed its counter affidavit and in para 5 of the counter affidavit, it is stated,

"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."

The Board 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 requiredcondition as per Clause 5 of the advertisement, therefore, candidature of the petitioners has rightly been rejected."

It was also argued on behalf of the petitioners that in view of Section 31 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 (“the Pharmacy Act”), both B.Pharma. and D.Pharma. are registered pharmacists; therefore, by virtue of not including B.Pharma. as an eligibility qualification for appointment to the post of Pharmacist, discrimination has been done with such candidates who have acquired B.Pharma. and such classification is not reasonable.

It was also argued that the rules have not been made as per the Pharmacy Act. In addition to this, it has also been argued that the Pharmacy Council of India has also decided that “a person holding the Pharm. D. qualification being higher qualification shall automatically become eligible for appointment to various posts where a person holding Diploma in Pharmacy or Bachelor of Pharmacy or Masters of Pharmacy qualification is eligible to be appointed.”

The court found that the service rules, which prescribe qualifications for the post of pharmacist, have not been challenged. The rule position remains the same after the Nandan Ban Goswami (supra) judgment of the Court in special appeal.

Admittedly, the petitioners are B.Pharma holders. They are not diploma holders in pharmacy. It is admitted that qualification as per service rules for the post of Pharmacist is D.Pharma. from a recognized institution and registration in the State Pharmacy Council. The advertisement also invites applications from the candidates possessing this qualification. The petitioners are B.Pharma. holders. They do not meet the requirements of the rules or the advertisement.

In relation to the above, this Court held,

"Unless the rules are changed, a candidate holding a B.Pharma. may not be eligible for the post of Pharmacist, as per the existing rules."

Furthermore, it was argued that in the first petition, an assurance was given by the Joint Secretary, Labour Department, Government of Uttarakhand that they would change the rules.

However, the court observed,

"Mere assurance cannot change the rules, unless they are changed. It is also settled law that there cannot be any estoppel against the Legislature. Based on any assurance given in the first petition, it cannot be said that now the petitioners are eligible for appointment to the post of Pharmacist, without a change in rules, including B.Pharma. also as a qualification for the post."

In addition, an argument has been made that the Pharmacy Council of India has also decided that B.Pharma. and D.Pharma. are one and the same.

In line with the above, the court read,

"It also does not make out any case for the petitioners. The service rules prescribe the educational qualification for appointment to the post of pharmacist, which is that a candidate must possess a diploma in pharmacy. Unless rules are changed, the petitioners cannot claim that they are eligible for appointment to the post of pharmacists."

In view of the above discussion, the Court held,

"It does not find merit in the writ petitions. The writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. "

To view the official order, click the link below: