Civil Writ Petition No.2646 of 2009 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: August 12, 2009 Naresh Kumar & others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.2646 of 2009 (Naresh Kumar & others Vs. State of Haryana & others) and 4023 of 2009 (Upender Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others). 41 posts of Pharmacists were advertised by respondent No.3 in the department of Employees State Insurance Health Care, Haryana, which is a part of Haryana Health Department. As per the advertisement, the essential qualifications were as under:- Civil Writ Petition No.2646 of 2009 : 2 : “i) Matric with Science (Physics and Chemistry) ii) Pharmacist course diploma from the Medical College, Rohtak or any other recognized Institutions recognized by the Haryana Government with Training in injection, dressing and ward work in a recognized Hospitals. iii) Registered as a Pharmacist with the Haryana Pharmacy Council under Section 31(a) or 31(c) or 32(a) of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 as applicable to Haryana State. iv) Hindi/Sanskrit upto Matric Standard.” The petitioners, who are matric with Physics and Chemistry as subjects and had thereafter passed a Diploma in Pharmacy, accordingly applied for appointment to the said post being fully eligible as per the advertisement. They have in support a letter from respondent No.1 saying that the petitioners are eligible for consideration on such a post as they have done Diploma in Pharmacy after passing matriculate examination. As per the corrigendum issued, the essential qualifications were amended to provide that education qualification should be 10+2 coupled with Diploma in Pharmacy. Respondent No.2 wrote a letter to respondent No.3 on 4.2.2009 requesting the Government that qualification of 10+2 be relaxed in respect of the candidates, who had done Diploma in Pharmacy after passing the matriculation examination before 6.11.2008. This corrigendum has been issued by the respondents on the basis of rules, which have been amended to provide for essential qualification for the post. In the reply filed by the Government, the copy of the rule, Civil Writ Petition No.2646 of 2009 : 3 : which stands amended in the year 2008, has been placed on record as Annexure R-3/1(T). As per this, the qualification in Appendix B for the post of Pharmacist, has been amended to read “10+2 with Science (Physics and Chemistry)”. The stand of the Government is that earlier essential qualifications were advertised inadvertently while ignoring the amendment carried out in the rule. Having noticed the same, the corrigendum was issued and hence the petitioners are not being considered eligible for consideration and appointment. Since the rule makes a provision for essential qualification, I do not see any reason to relax the qualification or to say that the petitioners would be eligible for such a consideration. To be fair to the counsel for the petitioners, he has drawn my attention to another advertisement, Annexure P-9, whereby essential qualification is matric with Diploma in Physics. The rule in the said department may not lay down a qualification of 10+2 to be essential one. Since the petitioners would be eligible for such an appointment if advertised in the department where this rule position is not in existence, they would have been at liberty to apply there. Merely because in other department, on the basis of a rule, different qualifications have been prescribed, that would not be a ground to interfere and to issue direction for relaxation of qualification in the case of the petitioners or to direct them that they be considered eligible as prayed for. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. August 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE