2025:UHC:11263 HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI W ARI W r it Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 2 3 6 2 of 2 0 2 4 1 6 t h Decem ber , 2 0 2 5 Reeta Pal --Petitioner Ver su s State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents with W r it Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 2 4 3 2 of 2 0 2 4 Upendra Sharma & others --Petitioners Ver su s State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Tapan Singh & Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for State Insurance Scheme, Uttarakhand. -------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board issued an advertisement inviting applications against 62 vacancies on the post of Pharmacist in ESIS Hospitals within State of Uttarakhand. Petitioners have challenged condition mentioned in Clause 17 of that advertisement 1 2025:UHC:11263 issued on 16.10.2024, which provides that selection shall be made as per provisions contained in Uttarakhand Employees State Insurance Scheme Pharmacist Cadre (Allopathic) Service Rules, 2021 and Uttarakhand Post of Group-A & Group-C (Outside the Purview of Public Service Commission) Direct Recruitment Procedure Rules, 2008. 2. Petitioners contend that as per applicable Service Rules, selection for appointment as Pharmacist in Hospitals run by Employees State Insurance Scheme has to be made year-wise, depending on the year of passing Pharmacy Course, and in case two or more candidates passed Pharmacy Course in the same year, then only their relative merit has to be considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the said criteria of selection laid down in the Rules is being bypassed and the selection is being held by the selecting body based on performance of a candidate in the written examination while written examination is not contemplated anywhere in the applicable rules. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, including the selecting body, however, submit that vide notification dated 2.9.2021, State Government enforced State Insurance Scheme Pharmacist Cadre (Allopathic) Service 2 2025:UHC:11263 Rules, 2021. Perusal of the said notification reveals that it is in supersession of the existing Rules on the subject. Rule 16 of the said Rules notified in 2021 provides that selection for appointment as Pharmacist shall be made as per the criteria determined by Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that even though under the earlier Rules there was a provision for selection based on year of passing Pharmacy Course, however, after enforcement of new Rules, whereby the earlier Rules were superseded, the selection criteria has undergone a change and petitioners cannot now harp upon the old criteria of selection when new Rules have occupied the field. It is further submitted that the State Government as employer has framed the Rules and in the Rules it is provided that criteria of selection shall be such as is determined by the Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board. He submits that in terms of Rule 16 of the new Rules introduced in 2021, requisition was sent to the selecting body and instructions were issued to hold written examination. He submits that the mere fact that the Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board was asked to hold selection reveals the intention of the State Government that State Government also wanted selection to be made based on 3 2025:UHC:11263 performance of the candidate in a competitive examination. 5. Law is well settled that the employer is at liberty to decide as to mode and manner of holding selection and also regarding the criteria to be followed while holding selection for appointment under the State. 6. Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution also require that selection for appointment to public post should be merit based. Thus, reliance by the petitioners upon the old Rules for seeking the relief that the old criteria of holding selection depending on year of passing Pharmacy Course should be followed, cannot be accepted, especially when the new Rules have been enforced, which provide that selection has to be merit based. 7. Thus, this Court do not find any infringement of any statutory provision, which may warrant interference. The condition mentioned in Clause 17 of the advertisement is as per the requirement of law. Thus, the relief as claimed cannot be granted. 8. The writ petition thus fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) Dt: 16.12.2025 Navin 4 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a1 31bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56 D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.12.18 18:41:37 +05'30'