ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the respondents to issue the petitioner, Pharmacist Registration Certificate. 2. The facts, as emerge from the writ petition, are that the petitioner passed his secondary examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Thereafter, he passed senior secondary examination from the Board of School and Technical Education, Chhattisgarh (for brevity, ‘BSTE’) and a certificate dated 25.02.2014 was issued in this regard. Thereafter, he did his diploma in Pharmacy from OPJS University, Churu and was granted a provisional certificate dated 11.08.2018 to this effect. Vide application dated 12.08.2018, he applied for registration as Pharmacist with the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council but, no action was taken thereupon. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondent no.2 in its reply submitted that since the BSTE, from where the petitioner has passed senior secondary examination, is not recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, the petitioner is not entitled for registration. 4. The respondent no.3 in its reply averred that the petitioner has passed out senior secondary examination in the year 2014 from the answering respondent and at that time, it was having recognition from the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he fulfills all the requisite criteria for registration as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, he is entitled for registration. He, therefore, prayed that the respondent no.2 may be directed to issue him requisite certificate. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, drawing attention of this Court towards letter dated 21.08.2020 issued by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer and the list appended thereto, submitted that only Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur has been granted recognization by the Rajasthan Board. Therefore, the petitioner having passed his senior secondary examination from the BSTE is not entitled for registration. Learned counsel submitted that though the BSTE was granted provisional recognization by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur; but, the same was withdrawn subsequently which was unsuccessfully challenged by the BSTE by way of writ petition (civil) no.1556/2016): Board of School and Technical Education, Bilaspur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2017. which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2017. He submitted that this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot treat the senior secondary examination passed out by the petitioner from a Board not recognised by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer as equivalent to senior secondary examination from the Rajasthan Board. He, in this regard, relies upon the following judgments: 1. Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karanataka University & Anr. and other connected matters: 1986 (Supp) SCC 740. 2. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lata Arun: (2002) 6 SCC 252 . 3. Devender Bhaskar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.: 2021 SCC Online SC 1116. 7. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, supporting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he has passed out senior secondary examination from it during the period it was having recognization from the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. 9. Heard. Considered. 10. The Education Regulations-1991 for diploma course in Pharmacy issued by the Pharmacy Council of India under Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 provides the eligibility for admission to diploma in Pharmacy Part-I course as under: “Minimum qualification for admission to Diploma in Pharmacy Part-I course-A pass in any of the following examinations with Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Mathematics. (1) Intermediate examination in Science; (2) The first year of the three year degree course in Science; (3) 10+2 examination (academic stream) in Science; (4) Pre-degree examinations; (5) Any other qualification approved by the Pharmacy council of India as equivalent to any of the above examinations.” 11. It is not disputed by the respondent no.2 that except the 10+2 examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or from a Board recognised by the Rajasthan Board, the petitioner does not fulfil the other requisite eligibility for his registration as Pharmacist. However, the respondent no.2 could not satisfy this Court any requirement either under the Regulations-1991 or any other statutory provision requiring a candidate for registration as Pharmacist with it to have passed 10+2 examination only from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan or from any Board recognised by the Rajasthan Board. As is apparent from the minimum qualification as provided under the Regulations-1991, no such condition is attached with the 10+2 examination. As is apparent from the minimum qualification as provided under the Regulations-1991, no such condition is attached with the 10+2 examination. In absence of any such statutory provision, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 cannot be countenanced. 12. This Court has, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1457/2021; Jahida Salma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters, vide its order dated 10.02.2022 held as under: “There is another important aspect of the matter. The qualification provided for appointment on the post of Female Health Worker under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for brevity “the Rules of 1965”), is as under: “Xth standard with Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery/Health Worker Female Course passed and registered in Rajasthan Nursing Council as B Grade Nurse.” It nowhere provides that Xth standard must be passed from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer or should be an equivalent qualification so declared by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, in absence whereof, the question of recognition/equivalence, perhaps, does not arise. Learned counsels for the respondents could not satisfy this Court as to requirement of recognition/equivalence by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer in absence of any such stipulation in the Rules of 1965. Of course, the Board from which a candidate has passed Xth standard must be valid one, a situation obtaining in the present case.” 13. This Court has gone through the order dated 26.9.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh in case of Board of School and Technical Education (supra) and does not find any observation that the aforesaid Board is a fake Board. The withdrawal of recognition granted by the Chattisgarh Board of Secondary Education was upheld on the premise that the recognition was granted by the incompetent authority. 14. In compliance of direction of this Court dated 9.3.2022, Shri Naveen Sanghi, the Registrar, Rajasthan Pharmacy Council has submitted his affidavit dated 10.3.2022 wherein it has been stated that eight candidates who have passed out their senior secondary examination from the BSTE were registered as Pharmacist in the year 2016 and 2017. 14. In compliance of direction of this Court dated 9.3.2022, Shri Naveen Sanghi, the Registrar, Rajasthan Pharmacy Council has submitted his affidavit dated 10.3.2022 wherein it has been stated that eight candidates who have passed out their senior secondary examination from the BSTE were registered as Pharmacist in the year 2016 and 2017. The affidavit further reveals that in February, 2020 also, as many as eight persons who have passed out their senior secondary examination from the BSTE and diploma in Pharmacy from OPJS University, Churu, have been registered as Pharmacist albeit under an interim direction of a Division Bench of this Court which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 fairly admits that in the pending litigation, no dispute has been raised as to ineligibility of the candidates, who have already been registered as Pharmacists, qua their senior secondary examination from the BSTE. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be put to hostile discrimination by the respondent no.2. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no issue of equivalence is found to be involved in the present case. Therefore, the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have no applicability in the present case. 16. In the backdrop of minimum qualification prescribed under the Regulations-1991, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to issue Pharmacist registration certificate to the petitioner within a period of a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.