Chattisgarh High Court
Domendra Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Others on 18 June, 2012
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION S NO 2117 OF 2012
Domendra Kumar Sahu
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Others
...Respondents
! Shri B P Singh Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Arun Sao Govt Advocate for the State
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 18/06/2012
: Judgement
ORDER
(Passed on this 18th day of June, 2012) (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
1. Challenge in this petition is to the provisional select list of Pharmacist Grade-II, pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.11.2011, wherein, the petitioner, after having participated in the selection process did not find place in the list.
2. The petitioner challenges the select list inter alia mainly on the ground that the authorities have given preference to the degree holders not the diploma holders for Pharmacist, when the qualification prescribed in the advertisement is Higher Secondary pass certificate or 10/12th pass in Science subject in 10+2 system with diploma in Pharmacist.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the diploma was prescribed as one of the essential qualifications, the authorities cannot give preference or select those candidates who had degree in Bachelor of Pharmacy. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it was also not mentioned in the advertisement that the minimum qualification is Diploma in Pharmacy only, not Bachelor of Pharmacy, which was higher qualification. Second contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that it amounts to change of procedure in the selection process specifically with regard to the qualification, as in the selection, the candidates having Bachelor of Pharmacy have been selected, which is not permissible in law.
4. Shri Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General submits that Diploma in Pharmacy is a minimum qualification, if a candidate has highest qualification i.e. Bachelor of Pharmacy, it cannot be said that there is any discrimination or arbitrariness in considering the candidatures of those candidates who have higher qualification and it also does not amount to change in the process of selection, which has been mentioned in the advertisement.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
6. It is true that a qualification after issuance of advertisement cannot be changed, as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; however, in case on hand, there is no change of qualification. Diploma in Pharmacy is the minimum qualification, as has been prescribed in the advertisement itself, and if a person is having superior qualification i.e. Bachelor of Pharmacy, his/her candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that he/she did not have Diploma in Pharmacy. Having Bachelor of Pharmacy qualification means that the candidate has better knowledge in the Pharmacy, which is required for appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II. A better qualified can never be rejected on the ground that the candidates having lesser qualification i.e. Diploma in Pharmacy are available. This is also not the intention of the Government.
7. It is well settled by a catena of decision that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiency is permissible under our constitutional scheme. The Supreme Court in the matter of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar & another1, considering the very issue observed as under :
"13. ....There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the employer preferring a candidate with higher qualification for service. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that classification on the basis of higher educational qualification to achieve higher administrative efficiency is permissible under our constitutional scheme. See Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India2, State of J.K. v. Triloki Nath Khosa3, Md. Sujat Ali v. Union of India4, Roop Chand Adlakha v. Delhi Development Authority5, V. Markendeya v. State of A.P.6 and Sanatan Gauda v. Berhampur University7. We, therefore, do not agree that treating post graduates as a class and giving them preference in this manner is violative of Articles 14/16 of the Constitution..."
8. In view of foregoing, selection of candidates having higher qualification cannot be held to be bad in law and as such, interference is not warranted.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. No order asto costs.
JUDGE