Page No.# 1/11 GAHC040012162025 2026:GAU-AP:559 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/329/2025 Apurbo Roy Son of Alip Roy, permanent resident of S N Ghosh Road, PO Buxarah, Howrah, District Howrah, West Bengal, and presently residing at Type II, D-6, Rajiv Gandhi University Complex, Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 2 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board Itanagar Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Secretary APSSB Govt of Arunachal Pradesh C Sector Itanagar. 3:The Commissioner Health and Family Welfare Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : , Binter Picha,Taying Nega,Jumgam Jini Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Health and Family) Page No.# 2/11 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Date on which judgment was reserved : 03.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : Yes operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : NA pronounced? JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV) 1. The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following relief: “I. Writ in nature of mandamus or appropriate writ or direction should not be issued directing upon the Respondent No. 1 (APSSB) to include the petitioner's name in the impugned final select list of candidate dated 28.02.2025 in furtherance of the provisional select list dated 17.07.2024 and written examination for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) held on 07-12- 2024 and 09.12.2024, by issuing appropriate Corrigendum. Page No.# 3/11 II. Writ in nature of mandamus or appropriate writ or Direction should not be issued directing upon the Respondent No. 1 (APSSB) to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) to the concern department, in terms of the public advertisement dated 17.02.2025, against the unreserved posts.” 2. As per the facts projected, a selection was conducted for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy). Though the total number of posts was 28 (Twenty-Eight), 23 (Twenty-Three) posts were reserved for APST candidates and the remaining 5 (Five) posts were unreserved. The petitioner was one of the aspirants belonging to the non-APST category. The petitioner participated in the selection process and claims to have topped the merit list by securing 159.5 out of 200 marks, which information could be gathered from the results published on the website. However, the name of the petitioner did not figure in the Final Select List. Upon making enquiries, the petitioner learnt that due to the nomenclature of his degree, he was not included among the selected candidates. It is the case of the petitioner that he holds a degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology, which is equivalent to a Bachelor of Pharmacy degree and therefore, the exclusion of his name from the selection is unreasonable and illegal. Accordingly, it is contended that a case for interference is made out. 3. I have heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare, for respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 4. Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, pursuant to the advertisement for selection to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy), the Page No.# 4/11 petitioner has duly participated in the process as he possessed all the requisite qualifications. It is submitted that the petitioner holds a degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology from the Guru Nanak Institute under the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal. He has further submitted that, in this regard, the Arunachal Pradesh Pharmaceutical Council had written to the concerned University, which, by its reply dated 16.09.2025, stated that the degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy. Insofar as the aspect that the prescribed qualification under the advertisement as well as the Recruitment Rules is a Diploma in Pharmacy is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a communication dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Health Department to the Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board, indicating that candidates possessing higher qualifications would also be eligible. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Chandra Shekhar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2025) 9 SCC 740. 5. Mr. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the course undergone by the petitioner is, for all practical purposes, equivalent to a Bachelor of Pharmacy course. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the various subjects and syllabus to contend that there is absolutely no difference between the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy and the degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further emphasised that the petitioner was the topper in the selection process and despite the same, he has been deprived of appointment. The learned counsel accordingly submits that a direction be issued to appoint the petitioner on the basis of his performance in the selection process. Page No.# 5/11 6. Per contra, Sri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, has submitted that the advertisement dated 17.07.2024 had clearly mentioned the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) with Post Code 24/24 and the required qualification was Class XII (Science) with Diploma in Pharmacy. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Recruitment Rules, more specifically, the Schedule thereof, in which under Column 7, the qualification for the post has been stated. He has submitted that there is no scope for accommodating persons with any other qualification. 7. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 on 16.09.2025, the learned State counsel has submitted that a form was required to be filled up by the candidates and so far as the form filled up by the petitioner is concerned, in the checklist, there was a remark that the petitioner was having the degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology and on the date of physical verification, the petitioner was not able to produce the document wherein he had the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy. Reference has also been made to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 on 18.11.2025. The learned State counsel has submitted that though the University, in its communication, had clarified that both the degrees are synonymous and equivalent, such clarification was not given to the State but only to the Arunachal Pradesh Pharmacy Council Staff Selection Board of the State. He has submitted that unless an equivalent degree is permitted in the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner cannot claim the relief. 8. In support of his contention, the learned State counsel has relied upon the case of Jyoti K.K. & Ors. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. reported in (2010) 15 SCC 596 and the following observations have been pressed into service: Page No.# 6/11 “6. Rule 10(a)(ii) reads as follows: “10. (a)(ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognised by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post.” 7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far. 8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of Sub- Engineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower Page No.# 7/11 qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.” 9. He has submitted that in the aforesaid case, the post involved was that of Sub-Engineer with the qualification of SSLC or equivalent with technical qualification as Diploma in Electrical Engineering/Certificate in Electrical Engineering. The appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were B.Tech Degree holders, who were not selected. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the Recruitment Rules themselves had laid down that higher qualifications would also be allowed. He has submitted that, on the contrary, so far as the present Recruitment Rules are concerned, there is no such provision. 10. The learned State counsel has also relied upon the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Anita & Ors. reported in (2015) 2 SCC 170, wherein it has been reiterated that unless the Recruitment Rules permit, higher qualifications cannot be allowed. He has also relied upon the case of Unnikrishnan C.V. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2023) 18 SCC 546, wherein it has been laid down that the Court will not enter into the domain of equivalency of a course and will not substitute its own view. He has also relied upon the case of Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 88, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that there cannot be any deviation from the prescription of the qualification in the Rules. 11. The learned State counsel has accordingly submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Sri T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, has endorsed the submissions of the learned State counsel and has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Page No.# 8/11 13. Sri Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder, has informed that one post is still lying vacant. He has also submitted that nomenclature should not govern the issue and in this regard, he has relied upon the case of Laxmikant Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 2712. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the nomenclature of degrees has to be considered contextually and purposively. 14. The rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 15. Certain things are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that there was a selection process for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy), which was initiated vide an advertisement dated 17.07.2024. It is also not in dispute that there is a set of Recruitment Rules which prescribe the qualification for the said post. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had offered his candidature and had participated in the selection, wherein he had secured 159.5 out of 200 and was the topper in the list. The dispute is only with regard to the degree of the petitioner. While the petitioner possesses the degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology, the requirement under the Recruitment Rules is a Diploma in Pharmacy. Though the learned State Counsel has emphasised that no relief can be granted when the petitioner admittedly does not possess the required qualification, i.e. a Diploma in Pharmacy, this Court is of the view that the Health Department itself, vide communication dated 22.09.2024, had clarified that candidates possessing higher qualifications would also be eligible. 16. The subsequent issue which arises for determination is with regard to the Page No.# 9/11 nomenclature of the degree possessed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he possesses the degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology, which is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy. In this regard, this Court has noted that, despite opportunities granted to the State to seek clarification from the Pharmacy Council of India, no such clarification could be obtained. However, certain clarifications were sought by the Arunachal Pradesh Pharmacy Council from the concerned Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, which issued a clarification dated 16.09.2025 stating that both the degrees were equivalent and synonymous. 17. When such clarification issued by the University is not disputed, the stand of the State in denying the benefit of appointment to the petitioner does not appear to be reasonable. 18. With regard to the case laws which have come up for consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti K.K.(Supra) had noticed that the Recruitment Rules themselves had laid down that a higher qualification would be allowed. While the learned State Counsel has submitted that there is no such prescription in the present Recruitment Rules, the Health Department itself, vide communication dated 22.09.2024, has taken a stand that a higher qualification would also be eligible. Under those circumstances, the stand of the State does not appear to hold any water. 19. With regard to the case of Unnikrishnan (supra) cited by the State, while it is the settled position of law that the Court will not enter into the domain of examining the equivalence of a course or a degree, in the instant case, there are materials on record, including the communication dated 16.09.2025 issued by the University itself to the Arunachal Pradesh Pharmacy Page No.# 10/11 Council, stating that the degree of Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Technology and the degree of Bachelor of Pharmacy are equivalent. 20. At this stage, it would be apt to refer and rely upon the recent case of Laxmikant Sharma (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid emphasis on the substance of the course/syllabus pertaining to the degree. For ready reference the relevant observations are extracted herein below: “32. On perusal of such circumstances, we are of the opinion that Insisting solely on the title of the degree, without considering the actual curriculum, amounts to elevating form over substance. The law does not compel such an interpretation. In our view, considering the facts of the present case, the expression "Postgraduate degree in Statistics" must be understood contextually and purposively.” 21. An issue has also arisen with regard to the availability of the post. While the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that one post is still available, the learned State Counsel has submitted that all the posts which were unreserved were filled up by candidates belonging to APST on merit. He has submitted that though one post is lying vacant, the same is not meant for a non-APST candidate. 22. This Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner has been able to establish his right in the writ proceedings, he would be entitled to the fruits of the litigation. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be appointed against the vacant post presently existing and if such appointment is not possible, the candidate who has who stood last amongst the selected candidates will have to make a way to the petitioner. 23. The writ petition accordingly, stands allowed. Page No.# 11/11 24. No order is to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant