Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the selection of the appellant to operate a 24-hour Medical Store in Orissa, following an advertisement by the Government of Orissa. The appellant, a registered Pharmacist in Madhya Pradesh, was selected based on her eligibility and the government's policy to provide preference to women applicants. The fifth respondent, an unsuccessful applicant, challenged this selection in the High Court, claiming the appellant was not qualified. The High Court quashed the selection, stating that the Medical Store was not identified for reservation for women. The Supreme Court, upon appeal, found that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the eligibility criteria and the reservation policy. The Court emphasized that the appellant's registration in another state sufficed for eligibility and that the preference for women was valid even without specific identification of the store. The Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the appellant's selection and allowing her to continue operating the Medical Store.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Selection Criteria - Validity of Selection - Pharmacy Act, 1948, Section 2(i) - The High Court quashed the selection of the appellant on grounds of alleged ineligibility and improper application of reservation policy. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was eligible as a registered Pharmacist in another state and that preference for women applicants was valid even without specific identification of reserved stores (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the selection of the appellant to run a Medical Store was valid under the applicable guidelines and policies.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the appellant's selection to operate the Medical Store and dismissing the writ petition filed against her selection.
Law Points
- Eligibility criteria
- preference for women
- Pharmacy Act
- reservation policy
- judicial review
