# Shubham Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 266
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 30776 of 2016
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shubham-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54582
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law-Constitution
of
India,
1950- Article 226- Petitioner sought
mandamus seeking direction to the St.
Government to include two year diploma
course of Veterinary Pharmacy as an
essential qualification for appointment on
the post of Veterinary Pharmacist and also
to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist considering his two year diploma
course--- The petitioner does not have any
vested right for being appointed on the post
of Veterinary Pharmacist which is a post of
direct recruitment and as per prevailing
procedure, the vacancies of Pharmacists shall
be filled up according to the need of the St.
Government. However, this court being a
Constitutional Court cannot issue a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the St.
Government to legislate and frame rules as
also to include two year diploma course as
an essential qualification for appointment
on the post of Veterinary Pharmacist in
view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court. (Para 8) (E-15)

List of Cases referred -:

## Text

266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
benefits within a further period of two
months.

21. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, the instant writ petition is
allowed.

22. Consequences to follow.

23. No order as to the cost.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 266
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 30776 of 2016

Shubham Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alok Mishra, in Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Jitendra Singh

Service
Law-Constitution
of
India,
1950- Article 226- Petitioner sought
mandamus seeking direction to the St.
Government to include two year diploma
course of Veterinary Pharmacy as an
essential qualification for appointment on
the post of Veterinary Pharmacist and also
to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist considering his two year diploma
course--- The petitioner does not have any
vested right for being appointed on the post
of Veterinary Pharmacist which is a post of
direct recruitment and as per prevailing
procedure, the vacancies of Pharmacists shall
be filled up according to the need of the St.
Government. However, this court being a
Constitutional Court cannot issue a writ in
the nature of mandamus directing the St.
Government to legislate and frame rules as
also to include two year diploma course as
an essential qualification for appointment
on the post of Veterinary Pharmacist in
view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court. (Para 8) (E-15)

List of Cases referred -:

1.
Supreme
Court
Employees'
Welfare
Association Vs U.O.I.& anr.(1989)4 SCC 187

2. St. of J.& K. Vs A.R. Zakki & ors.(1992)
Supp(1) SCC 548

3.
U.O.I.&
ors.Vs
K.
Pushpavanam
&
ors.2023 LiveLaw (SC) 630

4. St. of U.P. & ors.Vs Association of
Retired Supreme Court and High Court
Judges at Allahabad & ors.[2024]1 S.C.R.
211

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1.Heard Mr. Shubham Kumar,
petitioner in person and Sandeep Sharma,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
for the State.

2.By means of present petition, the
petitioner
has
prayed
for
following
prayer(s) :

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Certiorari to
quash
the
impugned
order
dated
14.12.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 1
as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ
petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents not to give
effect to the impugned order dated
14.12.2016 passed by the Respondent No. 1
4 All. Shubham Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
267
as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ
petition.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to include
the
2
years
Diploma
course
of
Veterinary Pharmacy as an essential
qualification for appointment on the
post of Veterinary Pharmacist keeping
in view the letter dated 30.6.2010
issued by the State Government, which
is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this
writ petition.

(iv) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding
the
respondents
to
consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist
keeping
in
view
his
completion of 2 years Diploma course
of Veterinary Pharmacy in the year
2015 itself by the Uttar Pradesh Pt.
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashu Chikitsa
Vigyan
Vishwavidyalaya
Evam
GoAnusandhan Sansthan, Mathura.

(v) to pass such other order or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem
fit
and
proper
under
the
circumstances of the case.

(vi) to award cost to the humble
petitioner throughout of the present writ
petition.

3.Brief facts of the case are as
under :

 It appears that vide Government
Order dated 30.6.2010 (Annexure-2), a
direction
was
issued
by
the
State
Government to the Vice Chancellor, Pt.
Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashu Chikitsa
Vishwavidyalaya, U.P., Mathura (in short,
university) to prepare a syllabus/course for
running two year diploma course in
Veterinary Pharmacy and provide it to the
State Government. Consequently, two year
diploma course in Veterinary Pharmacy
was started in the university.

It further appears that after taking
admission, the petitioner has successfully
completed his two year diploma course in
Veterinary Pharmacy with first division
from the university. Copies of the mark
sheet and diploma certificate are on record.

It is pleaded that several posts of
Veterinary Pharmacist are lying vacant
and the petitioner as well as other coapplicants are not being considered against
those
vacant
posts
of
Veterinary
Pharmacist. It also appears from the record
that for appointment on the post of
Veterinary Pharmacist, there are no service
rules
as
such.
However,
executive
instructions
/government
order
dated
14.12.2004 has been issued by the State
Government
providing
procedure
for
appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist till the concerned service rules
are promulgated. In the aforesaid office
memorandum, the appointing authority for
the post of Veterinary Pharmacist is Deputy
Director, Animal Husbandry and the
essential qualification for the post is
Intermediate with Biology or Agriculture
with additional provision of six months
training after selection on the post of
Veterinary Pharmacist.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a
writ petition No.22087 (S/S) of 2016 which
was disposed of vide judgment and order
dated 15.9.2016 directing the Principal
Secretary to take a decision on the
representation
of
the petitioner.
The
operative part of the order is extracted
below :

"Be that as it may, the aforesaid
aspects lie in the realm of the policy of the
State Government. However, taking into
account the over all aspect of the matter
and the averments made in the writ
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition, especially the Government Order
dated 30.06.2010 and the efforts made by
the State Government to start two years
diploma course in Veterinary Pharmacy in
Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay University of
Veterinary Sciences, U.P. Mathura, this
petition is disposed of finally with the
direction to the Principal Secretary,
Animal Husbandry, U.P., Lucknow to take
a decision relating to grievance of the
petitioner.

To facilitate the decision to be
taken by the Principal Secretary under this
order, the petitioner shall make a fresh
representation to the Principal Secretary
taking all the pleas which may be available
to him and annexing all the documents on
which he intends to rely within a fortnight
from today. On receipt of the said
representation along with certified copy of
this order, case of the petitioner shall be
considered and decided by the Principal
Secretary in accordance with law by
passing a reasoned and speaking order
within next three weeks. The decision so
taken by the Principal Secretary shall be
communicated to the petitioner."

The State Government vide a
reasoned and speaking order has rejected
the representation of the petitioner stating
that there are no prevalent rules of filling
up the post of Veterinary Pharmacist. The
posts are being filled up in accordance with
the procedure provided in executive order
dated
14.12.2004.
The
essential
qualification for the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist is Intermediate in Agriculture
or Biology. Apart from this, a candidate is
required to undergo six months of training
after selection which has been extended to
one year vide government order dated
21.3.2005.

While
deciding
the
representation, it has further been stated
that now, the Pharmacists of Veterinary
department are getting equal pay-scale as
compared to Pharmacists of Medical
Department, i.e. Rs.4500-7000. A further
decision was taken vide government order
dated 8.9.2010 to provide facility of
training and registration to the Pharmacists
at par with Pharmacists of the Health
Department. Later on, while reconsidering
the earlier recommendation of the Pay
Commission, 2008, vide government order
dated 18.3.2011, the pay-scale of Rs.50008000 has been approved and this post has
been directed to be filled up by direct
recruitment with educational qualification
of Intermediate Math or Biology Group and
the Diploma provided by State Medical
Faculty, U.P. Thus, at present, the
procedure for appointment on the post of
Pharmacist
is
in
accordance
with
government order dated 18.3.2011.

While deciding representation of
the petitioner, it has been further observed
that so far as appointment of the petitioner
on the post of Veterinary Pharmacist on the
vacant post in view of the government
order dated 30.6.2010 is concerned, only
directions were issued to the university in
question to formulate a professional course
and provide it to the State Government.
The
said
government
order
dated
30.6.2010 did not provide to run any
course
for
the
post
of
Veterinary
Pharmacist/Pashudhan Prasar Adhikari. It
has been observed that exercise to frame
the rules for the cadre of Pharmacist of
Veterinary Department is under active
consideration. This is a post of direct
recruitment and appropriate appointments
shall
be
made
from
the
selected
candidates as per prescribed procedure.It
further appears that in compliance of
order
dated
14.12.2016,
the
representation of the petitioner has been
considered and rejected vide order which
is impugned in this petition.
4 All. Shubham Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
269
4.It is submitted by the petitioner
appearing in person that vide government
order dated 30.6.2010, the university was
directed
to
prepare
a
course
for
Veterinary
Pharmacist/Pashudhan
Prasar Adhikari so that appointments of
the
persons
having
diploma
in
Pharmacy may be made.

The
petitioner
vide
relief
No.(iii)
has
sought
a
mandamus
directing respondents to include two
year diploma course of Veterinary
Pharmacy as an essential qualification
for appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist keeping in view the government
order dated 30.6.2010. A further writ of
mandamus is also sought to consider the
case of the petitioner for appointment on
the post of Veterinary Pharmacist keeping
in view his two year diploma course from
Pt.
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay
Pashu
Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwavidyalaya Evam
Go-Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura.

5.Learned Standing Counsel, on
the
other
hand,
has
opposed
the
contention and submitted that from
perusal of the government order dated
30.6.2010, it is evident that there is no
promise made by the State Government
to appoint a person who has completed
two year diploma course in Veterinary
Pharmacy.
It
is
submitted
that
presently, there are no service rules
governing the service conditions of the
Pharmacists
in
the
Veterinary
department. The appointments are being
made under executive instructions. One
such instruction has been issued on
14.12.2004. The selections are made
under the provisions of U.P. Procedure
for Direct Recruitment for Group D
Posts(Outside the Purview of the Uttar
Pradesh Service Commission) Rules, 2002.

Earlier, the training period was
for six months which has been extended
vide government order dated 21.3.2005 as
one year. The government order dated
30.6.2010 was issued only in order to
strengthen the services of the Veterinary
Pharmacists
by
enhancing
their
educational qualification. It is further
submitted that the service rules governing
the services of the Pharmacists are under
active consideration. It is a lengthy
procedure and after completing the
formalities, it will be notified soon. The
petitioner having diploma in Veterinary
Pharmacy does not have any vested right
to be appointed on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist
and
unless
the
rules
governing the services of Veterinary
Pharmacist are framed and notified, it is
not possible to appoint the petitioner on
the said post.

In the supplementary counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
No.1 in the year 2019, it has been
brought to the notice of the court that
draft of U.P. Veterinary Pharmacist
Evam
Pashudhan
Prasad
Adhikari
Council Act, 2019 has been prepared and
the file has been sent to the Law
Department for approval and after
getting
approval
from
the
Law
Department, it shall be sent to various
other departments, including Cabinet and
after approval of the Cabinet and
Assembly, the rules will be notified. Vide
para 5 of the supplementary counter
affidavit, two years additional time for
finalizing
necessary
proceedings
for
enforcement of the 2019 Rules has been
sought.

6.I
have
considered
the
submissions and perused the record as well
as the impugned order.
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7.A perusal of the record shows
that the petitioner after the course in
Veterinary Pharmacy was started in the
university
has
taken
admission
in
Veterinary Pharmacy course and passed the
same. The petitioner appears to have
interpreted the government order dated
30.6.2010 as if the State Government has
made any promise that on the completion
of diploma course by the petitioner, he will
be given appointment on the post of
Veterinary Pharmacist.

 A perusal of the government
order dated 30.6.2010 shows that no such
promise has been made by the State
Government. Only a request was made to
the university by the State Government to
prepare a syllabus in accordance with the
nature of the work being performed by the
Veterinary Pharmacist/Pashudhan Prasar
Adhikari and provide it to the State
Government. The relevant part of said
government order dated 30.6.2010 is
extracted below :

 " उपर्ुातत ववषर् पर मुझे र्ह कहने
का ननदेश हुआ है कक प्रदेश के पशुपालन
वविाग के अन्तगात पशुधचककत्सा धचककत्सा के
क्षेत्र
में
पशुधचककत्सा
अधिकारी,
वेटनरी
फामााभसथट एवां पशुिन प्रसार अधिकारी की
महत्वपूणा िूभमका है। पशुधचककत्साां अधिकारी
के पद पर पशुधचककत्सा में थनातक डर्ग्री
रखने वाले अभ्र्धिार्ों को लोक सेवा आर्ोग
के माध्र्म से चर्न कर ननर्ुतत ककर्ा जाता
।
पशुधचककत्सा
में
थनातक
की
भशक्षा
पशुधचककत्सा ववश्वववद्र्ालर्, मिुरा में उपलब्ि
है।
वेटनरी
फामााभसथट
/
पशुिन
प्रसार
अधिकारी के के पद के कार्ों एवां दानर्त्वों के
अनुरूप.
भशक्षा
की
व्र्वथिा
प्रदेश
के
ववश्वववद्र्ालर् में उपलब्ि नहीां है, जजसके
कारण वेटनरी / / पशुिन पशुिन प्रसार
अधिकारी के पद पर अभ्र्धिार्ों को चर्ननत
कर उन्हें, प्रभशक्षण प्रदान कर ननर्ुतत दी जाती
है। र्ह अनुिव ककर्ा जा रहा है कक र्दद प्रदेश
के ववद्र्ालर् एवां ववश्वववद्र्ालर्ों में वेटनरी
फामााभसथट / पशुिन प्रसार अधिकारी के पद के
कार्ों एवां दानर्त्वों के अनुरूप कोई कोसा हो तो
उस र्ोग्र्ता वाले अभ्र्िी इन पदों पर ननर्ुतत
होकर वविाग के अधिक उपर्ोगी भसद्ि होंगे।
 अतः
अनुरोि
है
कक
वेटनरी
फामााभसथट / पशुिन प्रसार अधिकारी के पद के
कार्ों एवां दानर्त्वों के अनुरूप भशक्षा हेतु एक
व्र्वसानर्क पाांतर्िम तैर्ार कर शासन को
उपलब्ि कराने का कष्ट करें।"

8.It
appears
that
while
mis-
interpreting the government order dated
30.6.2010 (supra), the petitioner has sought
a mandamus seeking direction to the State
Government to include two year diploma
course of Veterinary Pharmacy as an
essential qualification for appointment on
the post of Veterinary Pharmacist and also
to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist considering his two year
diploma course. In other words, the
petitioner is seeking a writ against the State
Government to legislate /enact a law on a
particular subject and in a particular
manner as is suited to the petitioner.

Law in this regard is quite clear.
No constitutional court can issue a writ of
mandamus to the Legislator to enact a law
on a particular subject in a particular
manner as held by the Supreme Court in
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Association versus Union of India and
4 All. Suleman Vs. Principal S.T. High School & Ors.
271
another (1989)4 SCC 187, State of
Jammu and Kashmir versus A.R. Zakki
and others (1992) Supp(1) SCC 548,
Union of India and others versus K.
Pushpavanam and others 2023 LiveLaw
(SC) 630 and State of U.P. and others
versus Association of Retired Supreme
Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad
and others [2024]1 S.C.R. 211. Thus, in
view of the settled law, it cannot be said
that there is any arbitrariness or illegality in
the impugned order dated 14.12.2016.

In the impugned order and the
short counter affidavit filed by the State
Government in the year 2019, already an
undertaking has been given to frame Rules.
The petitioner does not have any vested
right for being appointed on the post of
Veterinary Pharmacist which is a post of
direct recruitment and as per prevailing
procedure, the vacancies of Pharmacists
shall be filled up according to the need of
the State Government. However, this court
being a Constitutional Court cannot issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the State Government to legislate and
frame rules as also to include two year
diploma course as an essential qualification
for appointment on the post of Veterinary
Pharmacist in view of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases.

9.Needless
to
say
that
the
supplementary counter affidavit was filed
by respondent No.1 in the year 2019. Two
years time has already passed in 2021 and
still the rules have not been notified. It is
expected that the State Government shall
abide by the undertaking given by it while
filing the supplementary counter affidavit
and as given in the impugned order dated
14.12.2016 (supra).

10.The writ petition, subject to above
observation, is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 271
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ A No. 32542 of 1993

Suleman ...Petitioner
Versus
Principal S.T. High School & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anand Tiwari, Kavish Suhail

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dilip Gupta, Shashank Shekhar Singh

Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 226 - The University Non-Teaching
Employees (Terms and Conditions of
Services) Rules, 1972-Rule 11 & 14)- That
ad hoc/ temporary/ daily wage employees
rendering long years of service and were
permitted
to
superannuate
without
regularization/confirmation
in
service
are
entitled to post retiral benefits---Since the
petitioner had rendered continuous service for
decades, it creates a legitimate expectation for
proper
service
benefits---Petitioner
worked
continuously for 27 years until superannuation.
The University treated him as a regular
employee for all practical purposes, providing
him with all service benefits during his tenure.
To deny him post-retirement benefits merely
because he was not formally confirmed would
be unjust and contrary to the principles
established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
this Court---Petitioner entitled to get the all post
retiral
benefits---Respondent
directed
to
calculate and release all post-retirement benefits
to the petitioner within a period of three
months.

Writ Petition allowed. (Para 30, 31 & 32)
(E-15)

List of Cases referred-: