U.P.& ANR. Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra & ANR.  INSC 580 (3 August
APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.20558 of 2009 STATE OF U.P.
& ANR. ... Petitioners SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA & ANR. ... Respondents WITH
SLP(C)NOS.20769, 20774, 20785, 20901, 20908, 22114, 22655, 22678, 22732, 22749,
22851, 22955, 25647, 25649 & 32977 of 2009
The same criteria differently applied at two different points of
time leading to different results and consequences, is the problem we are faced
with in these Special Leave Petitions. The 2 same principles which were applied
in the case of the Respondents to deny them the benefit of appointment, were
not given effect to when it came to their turn to get the benefit thereof.
In order to appreciate this unusual situation, it is necessary to
relate some of the relevant facts of these cases.
The Respondents have passed the diploma course in Pharmacy from
different institutions which have been recognized by the Pharmacy Council of
India and are also registered with the State Pharmacy Council of U.P. Their
claim is for selection and appointment to the post of Pharmacist, which is
governed by the U.P. Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980, hereinafter referred to
as the `1980 Rules'.
to them, under Rule 15(2) of the 1980 Rules, all diploma holders were required
to be appointed against the vacancies which became available in each
recruitment year by first 3 appointing those Pharmacists who had obtained their
They claim that appointment to the post of Pharmacist should be
made batchwise from each year and that the vacancies which had accrued, should
be filled up by giving appointment to those Pharmacists according to the dates
on which they had obtained their diplomas, irrespective of their merit.
According to the Respondents, till those belonging to the earlier batches were
not considered and given appointments in such vacancies, the diploma holders of
the subsequent batches should not be given appointment, irrespective of their
The aforesaid controversy was triggered by an advertisement dated
12th November, 2007, whereby 766 vacancies were advertised for being filled up
by diploma holders. The advertisement provided that the recruitment would be
made in accordance with 4 the U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group
`C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Rules, 2000, as
amended by the U.P.
for Direct Recruitment of Group `C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public
Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003, and the relevant Service
Rules in force with regard to educational qualifications and other conditions
According to the Respondents, on an interpretation of Rule 15(2)
of the 1980 Rules by the State Government, they were entitled to be selected
and appointed first on the vacancies advertised, as they belonged to previous
batches and were denied appointment by the State Government earlier on the plea
that notwithstanding their merit being superior to those of some of the diploma
holders, who had obtained diploma prior in point of time, the latter candidates
were to be given appointment first. As a result, those 5 diploma holders, who
had obtained diploma before the Respondents, were adjusted against the
vacancies first, irrespective of their merit vis-`- vis the diploma holders of
subsequent batches and the said practice was continued till 2002.
when the fresh vacancies were declared and the Respondents were to be appointed
on the same principle and practice, they were denied the benefit of the same
citing the Rules of 1980 read with Rules of 2002, as amended by the Rules of
2003. According to the Respondents, it was not open to the State government to
take a different stand in interpreting the Rules to severe prejudice of the
Respondents' right to appointment, though similarly situated persons have been
given the benefit of the said Rules and whereunder the Respondents had been
denied appointment when their turn came to be appointed.
Questioning the said discriminatory and arbitrary treatment, the
Respondents herein moved several writ petitions before the Lucknow Bench of the
Allahabad High Court for quashing the above- mentioned advertisement dated 12th
November, 2007 and for a writ in the nature of Mandamus to command the
Petitioners herein to make recruitment to the vacant posts of Pharmacists
strictly in accordance with Rules 14 and 15 of the 1980 Rules, by specifying
the vacancies year-wise, and, thereafter, appointing the writ Petitioners to
the post of Pharmacists after providing for age relaxation. A further prayer
was made in one of the writ petitions (Writ Petition No.7771 (SS) of 2007) to
declare Rule 5(2)(iv)(b) of the amended Rules as ultra vires. After a detailed
consideration of the rules and the existing procedures, the amended Rules were
held to be intra vires. Considering the same, the Petitioners herein were
competent to issue the advertisement 7 and to constitute a Selection Committee
in terms of Rule 6 of the 2002 Rules and the First Amendment Rules 2003. It
was, however, also indicated that until and unless Clause (a) of Sub-Rule (3)
of Rule 5 of the 2003 Rules was amended, selection could not be undertaken by
computing the marks as per the procedure prescribed therein and selection had
to take place as per the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the 1980 Rules on the
basis of the marks obtained in the Pharmacy Diploma Examination.
The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the
Respondents herein in several writ appeals before the Division Bench of the
Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
Taking notice of the peculiar situation which had developed on
account of the differing interpretations of the Rules in question, the Division
Bench very succinctly summarized the issue 8 in the following words :
peculiar and a piquant situation has arisen in the instant case, where it is
not the case that an aspirant of the higher post in service on becoming
eligible for promotion or a person seeking direct appointment on the date when
he is to be considered for such a promotion or appointment, seeks to interpret
the rule of recruitment in a particular manner, looking to the past practice,
to his advantage, but here is a case where the appellants were excluded from
consideration of their appointment at the relevant time earlier, by
interpreting the rule to their disadvantage, and were made to believe that
likewise their candidature shall be considered later on, for which various
circulars and instructions were also issued by the State Government, but when
their turn came for getting employment, they were again being put out of
consideration, by interpreting the rule in a different manner."
On the basis of its aforesaid observations, the Division Bench
disposed of the several appeals with a direction that the case of the
Appellants therein would be considered in accordance with pre-existing practice
by considering their appointment on the basis of their merit taking their
objects into 9 consideration as was being done earlier, but this process would
be available only for said appellants. They would be accommodated if they were
otherwise found eligible and the remaining vacancies would be filled in by
following Rule 15(2) strictly as directed by the Single Judge. A direction was
also given to the respondents in the said appeals to give age relaxation to the
said appellants as per the Rules, if they had crossed the age limit, for the
reason that right from the year 1998 no selection had been made and in certain
cases, age relaxation had already been given. A further direction was given to
complete the selection process within three months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of the order.
Appearing for the Petitioners, Ms. Shobha Dikshit, learned
Advocate, submitted that the 1980 Rules prescribe the eligibility conditions
for selection of Pharmacists. Rule 10 provides for the 10 minimum and maximum
ages while Rule 14 provides for determining the number of vacancies to be filled
during the course of the year. Rule 15 provides the procedure for direct
recruitment by the constitution of a Selection Committee and preparation of a
select list in order of merit, which would be valid for a period of one year.
On the other hand, the 2003 Rules provide the detailed procedure for
determining the merit and suitability of candidates with technical
qualifications. Ms. Dikshit submitted that there was no clash or contradiction
between the said two Rules and that both, therefore, exist side by side.
Ms. Dikshit submitted that the 2003 Rules were being followed by
the State Government for direct recruitment to Class III posts which were
outside the purview of the Public Service Commission, such as Pharmacists, Lab.
Technicians, ECG Technicians, etc. She submitted that the last advertisement 11
dated 11th February, 2007 was a composite advertisement inviting applications
from all paramedical trades such as Pharmacists, Lab.
X-ray Technicians, Physiotherapists and ECG Technicians and selections had
already been made. It was also submitted that while filling the backlog of
reserved category candidates for filling up the posts of Pharmacists for the
year 2007, the Rules of 1980 read with the Rules of 2003 had been followed and
about 73 vacancies had been duly filled in. Furthermore, since the matters
relating to selection and appointment of Pharmacists were pending consideration
before this Court for other trades other than the selection of Pharmacists, the
Rules of 2003 had been applied and the selected candidates had already joined
Ms. Dikshit, submitted that Rule 5 of 2003 Rules made it very
clear that only the merit of the eligible candidates was required to be judged
on 12 the basis of the minimum technical qualifications, as provided in the
Educational Regulation Act, 1991, for the diploma course in Pharmacy, and the
marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the diploma in Pharmacy are
taken into consideration for determining merit. The method adopted for allocating
certain percentage of marks as contained in Sub-Rule (2) is only to give more
credit to meritorious candidates as compared to candidates having lesser merit.
Ms. Dikshit urged that the special procedure did not offend Article 14 of the
Constitution nor was it contrary to the 1980 Rules, since it did not result in
any kind of bias or prejudice to the candidates of any particular batch. Ms.
Dikshit submitted that all eligible candidates were graded similarly and the
object of the procedure, as provided in the 2003 rules, is to adjudge the
merits of the candidates on the basis of the technical qualifications uniformly
throughout the State so as to maintain 13 efficiency in Government service.
Ms. Dikshit submitted that the observations made to the contrary
by the learned Single Judge of the High Court were erroneous and instead of
appreciating the same, the Division Bench also erroneously accepted the
contentions that notwithstanding the 2003 Rules, the past practice should be
followed. Ms. Dikshit submitted that neither was there any past practice nor
was there any other rule or guidelines for selections to be made for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist after the year 2003, when the 2002 Rules
came into operation. According to Ms. Dikshit, even otherwise, the directions
issued by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment would create two
different procedures to select candidates in one selection process.
Ms. Dikshit also urged that the tenor of the impugned judgment
gives the impression that the 14 State Government had been following a practice
of giving preference to earlier batches over later batches. According to Ms.
Dikshit, such a practice was factually incorrect and till date, no candidate
from previous batches had been left out. However, having regard to the decision
of the High Court in case of Rajat Yadav & Anr. vs. State of U.P. &
Petition No.2473 (SS) of 2000), issuing a mandamus to the State Government to
accommodate the 54 candidates left over from the selection, the State
Government, while implementing the said direction, had filled up the posts
accordingly. In the process of such an exercise, candidates with lesser merit
came to be appointed, more so, having regard to the fact that the State
Government did not choose to challenge the correctness of the judgment. Ms.
Dikshit submitted that even on such grounds the stand of the Respondents that
past practice should be followed in future also ignoring merit, was not capable
of being accepted.
According to Ms. Dikshit, such an action would be contrary to the 1980 Rules
and the established service jurisprudence. She also pointed out that the
learned Single Judge had come to the positive conclusion that only an amendment
was made to Rule 5(3)(a) since selection could not be undertaken by computing
the marks in terms of the procedure prescribed, and, on the other hand, selection
would have to take place as per the provisions of Rule 15(2) of the U.P.
Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980, on the basis of the marks obtained in the
Pharmacy Diploma Examination, irrespective of the year in which the candidate
had appeared in the Diploma Examination.
Several Special Appeals were filed by the writ Petitioners before
the High Court which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 4th May, 2009,
with a direction that the age of the Respondents be relaxed as per rule, if
they had 16 crossed the age limit for the reason that right from the year 1998,
no selection had been made and in certain cases, age relaxation had been
Ms. Dikshit further pointed out that while disposing of the Writ
Appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court had also relied on the submission
that unless the Respondents were considered for selection, they would lose
their right to be considered for such selection for all times to come on
account of an incorrect interpretation of the Rule, forgetting that the
Respondents could have challenged their non-selection at the time when they
were excluded from the zone of consideration on the ground that their case
would be considered only after the diploma holders who had obtained diploma
prior to them were accommodated or selected irrespective of their merit. Ms.
Dikshit concluded on the note that if the State Government had interpreted the
rule in question otherwise and had 17 adopted a policy which would accommodate
all diploma holders and the same was not challenged by the Respondents and, on
the other hand, the State Government deliberately and consciously, in the
interest of the diploma holders, adopted a policy which would accommodate all
diploma holders, the Petitioners could not be penalized for not coming to court
earlier. Ms. Dikshit submitted that having regard to the rules for appointment
to the post of Pharmacist having been promulgated in the year 2003, there was
no justification in the claim of the Respondents that for filling up future
vacancies the cases of the candidates who had obtained their diplomas earlier
should be considered for appointment in earlier batches till such time as all
such candidates were accommodated against the vacancies that existed or were to
arise in future. Ms. Dikshit submitted that the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge, as also the Appeal Court, was liable to be set aside.
8. In support of her aforesaid submissions, Ms. Dikshit firstly
referred to the decision of this Court in S. Prakash & Anr. vs. K.M. Kurian
& Ors. [(1999) 5 SCC 624], which deals with the question of rules of
interpretation and in this case the interpretation of the maxim "generalia
specialibus non derogant" and "generalia specialibus derogant".
of the two maxims indicate that general things do not derogate from special
things and it was held by this Court that although, ordinarily the special law
would override the general law, in special circumstances if the language of the
general provision is clear and unqualifying, it would prevail over the special
provision and the special provision would have to give way, if the legislature
intended to establish a rule of universal application. Ms. Dikshit urged that
in the instant case, since there was no existing rule and only a practice was
being followed, when a 19 special provision was enacted relating to
recruitment, the same would have precedence over the past practice which had
been followed till such time as the rules were promulgated.
Ms. Dikshit also referred to the decision of this Court in Maya
Mathew vs. State of Kerala & Anr. [2010 (2) SCALE 833], which deals with
the rules of interpretation when a special matter is governed by two such
rules. The ratio which was laid down by this Court is that if a subsequent law
did not repeal the earlier rule, there cannot be a presumption that the earlier
rule was intended to be repealed. It was indicated that when two provisions of
law, one of which is general and the other is special, govern the same matter,
the court should make an attempt to give a harmonious construction to both the
provisions, but when there was a clear expression in the general rules to
exclude the special rules, the same would have to 20 be given effect to.
Applying the aforesaid decision to the facts of the instant case, Ms. Dikshit
urged that in the present case when special rules have been framed for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist and earlier appointments to the said post
were made on the basis of the prevailing practice, it is the enacted rules which
would prevail and the practice as followed so far would have to give way.
On the question of acting on the basis of the past practice for
the purpose of appointment or promotion, Ms. Dikshit referred to the decision
of this Court in Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. State of J&K & Ors.
[(2000) 7 SCC 561], wherein while considering the question of promotion on the
basis of the quota and rota rules, this Court had occasion to consider the
legal value of past practice in such matters. This Court went on to hold that
in the absence of any provision for rota 21 in the rules, the same could not be
claimed on the basis of past practice. Ms. Dikshit submitted that since in the
2003 Rules no mention had been made regarding the continuance of the
appointment to the post of Pharmacist on the basis of past practice, both the
Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, had erred in
placing reliance on the said practice and the appointments to be made on the
Ms. Dikshit submitted that out of the 16 Special Leave Petitions
being heard, the State is the petitioner in 12 and the 4 other SLPs have been
filed by the private parties. Ms. Dikshit submitted that the submissions in
respect of all the SLPs are common to those made in the instant SLP.
Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Respondents in SLP(C)No.21570 of 2006, submitted that the said Special Leave
Petition was in fact the lead matter and all the 22 other Special Leave
Petitions were filed subsequently for the same relief. Joining issue with the
submissions made by Ms. Dikshit, Mr. Rao submitted that in order to prevent the
perpetrating of an injustice which had been caused to the candidates who had
successfully completed the diploma course in Pharmacy prior to 2003 and had
been denied appointment solely on the ground that those who had completed
Pharmacy course before each year, had to be accommodated first, and were being
denied appointment on the basis that such appointment could not be made batch-wise,
the High Court had to work out a formula by which they could also be provided
relief without interfering with the provisions of the 2003 Rules, as has been
indicated in the very beginning of this judgment.
submitted that in 1998 only a part of the 1992 batch of Pharmacists had been
appointed in general category and upto 1997 the reserve category had been
cleared. However, the Respondents were 23 only concerned with the question of
batch-wise promotion from prior to the promulgation of 1993 Rules on the ground
that having been deprived once on the basis of the past practice, they could
not be deprived for the second time by virtue of the promulgation of 2003
Rules. Further more, it was also pointed out that the State Government had
itself admitted in paragraph 22 of its affidavit that the past practice was
being followed for a long time prior to the promulgation of 2003 Rules.
In support of his submissions, Mr. Rao relied on the decision of
this Court in N. Suresh Nathan & Anr. vs. UOI & Ors. [(1992) Supp. (1)
SCC 584], wherein, while considering the question of promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, this Court had occasion to
consider the construction of the service rules in consonance with the long-standing
practice in the concerned department and it was held that such long 24 standing
practice was to be preferred. In fact, in the said decision, this Court was
considering the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had held
that in considering the question of preferring the decree holders in Civil
Engineering to Diploma holders in the same discipline, the case of the decree
holders was to be preferred on account of their superior qualification and
question of past practice could not be introduced while considering the
respective cases of their promotion. Disagreeing with the view expressed by the
Tribunal, this Court was of the view that the rules must be interpreted to mean
that the three years' service in the grade of a degree-holder for the purpose
of Rule 11 is three years from the date of obtaining the degree and that the
same is quite tenable and in conformity with past practice which had been
followed consistently. Accordingly, the Tribunal was not justified in taking a
contrary view and unsettling the settled practice in the 25 said department.
Reference was also made to another decision in Shailendra Dania
& Ors. vs. S.P. Dubey & Ors. [(2007) 5 SCC 535], where a similar
question arose in connection with the eligibility for promotion wherein
differential service experience based on differential educational
qualifications had been prescribed and longer period of service experience was
prescribed for diploma holder Junior Engineers in comparison to degree holder
Junior Engineers for the post of Assistant Engineer. Explaining the rationale
behind the permissibility of making such a distinction, this Court held that
the difference between the service qualifications has been an essential
criterion for promotion based on interest of an establishment. While
considering the said question, this Court had also the occasion to consider the
possibility of two views being taken while interpreting a particular set of
service 26 rules. In such a situation, this Court held that the rules should be
interpreted in consonance with the practice followed by the department for a
long time. In fact, while arriving at such a conclusion, this Court had also
the occasion to consider the earlier case of N. Suresh Nathan (supra).
Mr. Rao urged that having applied the relevant Rules in a
particular manner at a particular point of time to the prejudice of the
Respondents, the Petitioners have acted arbitrarily and unfairly in not
applying the same set of Rules, again to the prejudice of the Respondents, thereby
completely eliminating the chance of appointment in case of some of the
Respondents, who, in the meantime, had become over-aged. Mr. Rao submitted that
such arbitrariness should not be allowed to continue and the decision of the
Petitioners not to give batch- wise promotion to those Pharmacists, who have 27
obtained their diplomas prior to 1998, was liable to be quashed.
The same line of submissions was advanced by Mr. Mukesh Giri,
learned Advocate, appearing for some of the Respondents in SLP(C)No.22678/09
and SLP(C)No.22749/09. In addition to what was submitted by Mr. Rao, Mr. Giri
submitted that having regard to Rule 3(g) of the 1980 Rules, the vacancy
position should have been provided by the State. On the other hand, there was a
complete violation of the provisions of Rules 14 and 15 of the said Rules which
provided for the same.
Mr. Rao's submissions, Mr. Giri submitted that the Respondents could not be
denied an opportunity of employment twice on the basis of the same set of Rules,
but on being applied differently.
Mr. D. Roy Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for some
of the Respondents in SLP(C)No. 28 20558/09 and various other Special Leave
Petitions, contended that if any inconsistencies were to be found in the 1980,
2002 and 2003 Rules, the benefit would have to be presumed to be in favour of
the Respondents. Mr. Roy Choudhary submitted that the question of
discontinuance of the past practice was irrelevant and having followed the 1980
Rules consistently, it was not open to the State to resile from its position to
the detriment of those candidates who were available for appointment according
to the said Rules, but were not considered, since the earlier diploma holders
in Pharmacy had to be adjusted against the existing vacancies. Mr. Giri
submitted that the decision of the High Court was sound and did not require any
Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel, who appeared for the private
Respondents in SLP(C)No.22732/09, also supported the judgment of the High Court
and 29 urged that this was not a case where any of the candidates, who had the
necessary qualifications, was rejected. On the other hand, it would appear that
their cases were deferred in order to accommodate those diploma-holders who
were waiting from previous batches for appointment in the vacancies occurring
from time to time. He too submitted that the impugned order of the High Court
did not merit any interference and the Special Leave Petitions filed by the
State of U.P. were liable to be dismissed.
The submissions made by Mr. Rao, Mr. Choudhary and Mr. Giri were
reiterated by Mr. Shree Pal Singh appearing in SLP(C)No.20558/09. He, however,
added that the Rules of 2000 and 2003 would have to be read in harmony with the
Rules of 1980, which had not been repealed by the subsequent Rules and
continued to be in existence.
Mr. Kailash Vasudev and Mr. P.S. Narasimhan, learned Senior
Advocates, appearing for some of the Respondents in two of the Special Leave
Petitions, reiterated Mr. Rao's submissions that the practice which had been
followed since 1980, could not be discarded, till all those who were to be
benefitted under the said Rules had been duly accommodated.
it was submitted that there was no provision which prevented the State
Government from following such practice merely because of the intervention of
the 2000 and 2003 Rules.
We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties, having particular regard to the fact that a practice which
had been consistently followed and had deprived some of the diploma-holders in
Pharmacy earlier, is now being discarded against them to deprive them of an
opportunity of employment. Although, an attempt has been made by Ms. Shobha
Dikshit to justify the 31 action of the State authorities, in the face of
apparent injustice caused to the private Respondents in these Special Leave
Petitions, we are unable to accept her contentions. In our view, the learned
Single Judge while deciding the various writ petitions filed by the private
Respondents herein and allowing the benefit of relaxation of age, erred in
directing that the selections of even the said Respondents were to be made strictly
on the criteria of merit, irrespective of the batch in which the incumbents had
obtained their diplomas in Pharmacy. The said error was rightly corrected by
the Division Bench in the Special Appeals, which had been filed, which is
reflected in the extract of the impugned judgment set out hereinbefore. The
Division Bench quite rightly held that the injustice caused to the private
Respondents on account of the interpretation of the Rule to their disadvantage
at a subsequent stage by the State Government, required to be corrected.
It is on account of a deliberate decision taken by the State
Government that the private Respondents were left out of the zone of
consideration for appointment as Pharmacists in order to accommodate those who
had obtained their diplomas earlier. The decision taken by the State Government
at that time to accommodate the diploma- holders in batches against their
respective years can no doubt be discontinued at a later stage, but not to the
disadvantage of those who had been deprived of an opportunity of being
appointed by virtue of the same Rules. In our view, the same decision which was
taken to deprive the private Respondents from being appointed, could not now be
discarded, once again to their disadvantage to prevent them from being
appointed, introducing the concept of merit selection at a later stage. The
same may be introduced after the private 33 Respondents and those
similarly-situated persons have been accommodated.
The various decisions cited by Ms. Dikshit are of little help to
the case of the Petitioners. The facts in the case of Suraj Prakash Gupta &
Ors. (supra) bear no comparison to the facts at issue in these Special Leave
Petitions. There can be no divergence of opinion with regard to the principles
of law laid down in the said decision, but the same was referred to in the
facts of that case, where it was held that in the absence of any provision for
rotation in the Rules, the same could not be claimed on the basis of the past
practice. As indicated hereinbefore, in this case a certain set of Rules were
applied in a manner which deprived the private Respondents of an opportunity to
be considered for appointment as Pharmacists, despite having acquired the
requisite qualification and being deprived of appointment once again by 34
discarding the same Rules to their detriment. In our view, the decision in N.
Suresh Nathan & Anr. (supra) is more apposite to the facts of this case.
course, this is not a case for applying the "doctrine of past
practice" alone, in addition, this is a case which involves the
deprivation of certain candidates by application of the procedure differently
at two different points of time.
We, therefore, are of the view that in the facts of this case no
interference is called for with the decision of the Division Bench of the High
Court impugned in these SLPs. The 12 Special Leave Petitions filed by the State
of U.P., being S.L.P. Nos. 20558, 20769, 20774, 20785, 20901, 20908, 22655,
22678, 22732, 22749, 22851, 22955 of 2009, along with S.L.P.(C) Nos. 25647 and
25649 of 2009, filed by Vaibhav Kumar Singh and Ors. and Brijesh Kumar Sharma
and others, whose cases are similar to that of the State of U.P., are
dismissed, but 35 without any order as to costs. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.
22114 of 2009 and 32977 of 2009 filed by Ajay Singh and others and Shravan
Kumar Pandey and others, stand allowed. The petitioners therein shall be
entitled to the same benefits as those Diploma holders governed by the 1980
Rules, having obtained their Diplomas in Pharmacy prior to 1998. There will be
no order as to costs in these S.L.Ps also.
................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR)
................................................J. (S.S. NIJJAR)
New Delhi Dated:
August 03, 2010.