A selected in-service employee must be relieved to pursue the allotted M.Pharm course.

The petitioner, a Health Inspector Grade I, applied for the M.Pharm course under the in-service candidates’ quota.

Clause 6 of the prospectus included specified government-serving B.Pharmacy graduates with the required service as service candidates.

The petitioner was selected and received a provisional allotment order dated 16 September 2026, but was not relieved from service to join the course.

The respondents stated that the M.Pharm qualification was not a prerequisite for promotion and that the request to relieve the petitioner had been referred to the first respondent, whose decision was pending.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing his relief from service.

1. Whether the petitioner, having been selected for the M.Pharm course under the in-service quota, should be relieved from service to pursue it.

2. Whether the Selection Committee should consider accommodating the petitioner in the course in light of the delay in relieving him.

The Court acted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue writs, including mandamus, for the enforcement of legal rights and performance of public duties.

It also considered Clause 6 of the course prospectus, which defined the categories of B.Pharmacy graduates eligible for selection under seats reserved for service candidates.

The judgment cited no statutory provision beyond Article 226 and no judicial precedent.

It noted the Government’s revised policy on incentives for additional qualifications, but did not identify that policy as the basis for a specific legal rule in deciding the petition.

The Court noted that the petitioner had applied under the service-candidate provisions of the prospectus and had been selected for the course.

Although the respondents stated that the qualification was not required for promotion, the Court considered that point insufficient to displace the petitioner’s selection or justify leaving his request unresolved.

It held that the petitioner’s case required consideration by the first respondent and that he should be permitted to pursue the course.

Given the delay and the course’s joining timeline, the Court also directed the Selection Committee to consider accommodating him under the applicable rules.

The first respondent was directed to relieve the petitioner within two weeks so that he could pursue the M.Pharm course.

The Director of Medical Education was also directed to consider accommodating him under the rules in force, in view of the delay in relieving him.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.