STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 03-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 942 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
v. 
. 
SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20558 of 2009) 
AUGUST 03, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Service Law - Selection and appointment of Pharmacy 
C diploma holders as Pharmacists in the State of Uttar Pradesh 
-
On an interpretation of the 1980 Rules, the State 
Government followed the practice of adjusting diploma 
holders of the previous batches against the vacancies first, 
irrespective of their merit vis-a-vis the diploma holders of 
D subsequent batches - Accordingly, the respondents-diploma 
holders, being of subsequent batches, were denied 
appointment - However, when fresh vacancies were declared 
and the respondents were to be appointed on the same 
principle and practice, the State Government again denied 
E 
them appointment citing merit as the criterion by interpreting 
the Rules of 1980 read with Rules of 2002, as amended by 
the Rules of 2003 - Held: The action of the State authorities, 
in the face of apparent injustice caused to the respondents, 
cannot be justified - The same decision which was taken to 
F 
deprive the respondents from being appointed, could not be 
discarded, once again to their disadvantage to prevent them 
from being appointed, by introducing the concept of merit 
selection at a later stage, though the same may be introduced 
after the respondents and similarly-situated persons have 
been accommodated - This is not a case for applying the 
G 
"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 - U.P. Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group 'C' 
H 
942 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. v. SANTOSH KUMAR 
943 
MISHRA AND ANR. 
Posts (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) A 
Rules, 2002, as amended by the UP. Procedure for Direct 
Recruitment of Group 'C' Posts (Outside the Purview of Public 
Service Commission) (First Amendment) Rules, 2003 -
Doctrines - Doctrine of "past practice" - Equity. 
8 
An advertisement was issued in the State of Uttar 
Pradesh for filling up the posts of Pharmacist by 
selection and appointment of diploma holders in 
Pharmacy. The advertisement provided that the 
recruitment would be made in accordance with the U.P. c 
Procedure for Direct Recruitment of Group 'C' Posts 
(Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) 
Rules, 2002, as amended by the U.P. Procedure 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 · D 
to educational qualifications and other conditions of 
service. 
The respondents moved writ petitions before the 
High Court contending that on an interpretation of Rule E 
15(2) of the U.P. Pharmacists Service Rules, 1980, the 
State Government had denied them appointment earlier 
on the ground that the diploma holders, who had 
obtained diploma prior in point of time, were to be given 
appointment first; however, when fresh vacancies were 
F 
declared in the year 2007 and the respondents were ·to 
be appointed on the same principle and practice, the 
State Government denied them appointment citing the 
Rules of 1980 read with Rules of 2002, as amended by 
the Rules of 2003. 
The Single Judge of the High Court held that 
selection was required to be done as per the provisions 
of Rule 15(2) of the 1980 Rules, on the basis of the marks 
G 
H 
944 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A obtained in the Pharmacy Diploma Examination, 
irre.spective of the year in which the incumbents had 
obtained their diplomas in Pharmacy. The Division Bench 
of the High Court however directed that the case of the 
respondents was required to be considered in 
B 
accordance with pre-existing practice by considering 
their appointment on the basis of their merit as was being 
done earlier, but this process be available only for said 
respondents, while the remaining vacancies were 
required to be filled in by following Rule 15(2) strictly as 
c directed by the Single Judge. 
Disposing of the special leave petitions, the Court 
HELD:1.1. Having particular regard to the fact that a 
practice which had been consistently followed and had 
D deprived some of the diploma-holders in Pharmacy 
earlier, is now being discarded against them to deprive 
them of an opportunity of employment

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.