JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by filing this writ petition has challenged the selection of the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 in the post of Pharmacist (Allopath) and the consequential offers of appointment made in their favour. 3. The grounds as urged by the petitioner are that the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 do not have the essential qualification as required by the Recruitment Rules for Pharmacist (Allopathy), Health & Family Welfare Department as published by the notification dated 30.03.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). According to the said Recruitment Rules, the essential educational qualifications are as follows: (i) H.S.(+2 stage) with Science passed from a recognized Institution. (ii) Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized Institution. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 are not having diploma in Pharmacy but they are having degree of Pharmacy. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has further submitted that the degree in Pharmacy has not been obtained after passing the diploma in Pharmacy and as such they did not complete the course of the diploma in Pharmacy which course is primarily designed for Hospital Service and Drug Store Management in different hospitals. Even the practical trainings are given on those subjects. But in the degree curriculum, no course for Hospital Service or Drug Store Management or practical trainings is instructed. Hence, it cannot be even contended that in the degree course the similar curriculum is pursued and thus, it will serve the purpose of the Recruitment Rules. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred the judgment and order dated 5.12.2016 delivered in WP(C) No. 209 of 2015 [Sri Bhaskar Das and another v. The State of Tripura and another], where this Court has observed as under: “27 It is an admitted position that the respondents No. 4 and 5 do not have the basic essential qualification of three-year diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineering and the degree of Engineering has not been acquired on acquisition of the said diploma course. Even, by any stretch, the evolved rule of presupposition cannot be applied in this case. Even, by any stretch, the evolved rule of presupposition cannot be applied in this case. Having held so, this court does not have any hesitation to hold further that the selection of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, as this court was not urged to examine the selection of the others, is in contrary to the Recruitment Rules and the said advertisement is therefore, a nullity of law.” 6. In that case, the comparison was between the Diploma in Automobile or Mechanical Engineer vis-a-vis the degree in Mechanical Engineer. This Court had occasion to observe that unless after passing the diploma in Automobile or the Mechanical Engineering, someone acquired the degree in Engineering, that qualification though apparently higher, cannot be treated as eligibility for appointment in the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has emphatically submitted that the said principle of law would squarely be applicable in this present case. 7. Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has produced a written instruction in the form of Note No. 15 where the following instructions of the respondents are available: “Pharmacist (Allopath) post is meant for Hospital service and drug store management in different Hospitals. Diploma course is designed for such purpose with practical training. But degree course is not stressed on Hospital service and drug store management without any practical training.” 8. In view of this instruction, Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the judgment dated 15.12.2016 squarely covers this case. 9. Having regard to this, the impugned selection of the respondents No. 35 as reflected in Annexure-R/2 of the counter affidavit and their appointments issued in pursuance to the said selections are interfered with and set aside. 10. The respondents are directed to fill up the consequential vacancies from the candidates having Diploma in Pharmacy (Allopathy) in terms of the notification (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) in order of merit. The appointments have to be made within a period of 3 months from today. 11. With this observation and direction, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. For purpose of reference, a copy of the Note No. 15 as produced by Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents be made part of the records for future reference. Copy of this order be furnished to Mr. There shall be no order as to costs. For purpose of reference, a copy of the Note No. 15 as produced by Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents be made part of the records for future reference. Copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents for his use.