Union Public Service Commission vs Shristi Singh

1 applications for recruitment of Drug Inspectors. The

requisite qualification for the post of Drug Inspector are:

a. Degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences

OR Medicine with specialization in Clinical

Pharmacology OR Microbiology from a recognised

University OR equivalent.

b. Eighteen months’ experience in the manufacture

of at least one of the substances specified in

Schedule ‘C’ to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules,

1945; OR Eighteen months’ experience in testing

of at least one of the substances specified in

Schedule ‘C’ to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules,

1945 in a laboratory approved for this purpose by

the licensing authority.

3. The first Respondent submitted her online application

on 16.03.2015. There is no doubt about Respondent No.1

possessing the requisite educational qualifications. In so

far as the experience is concerned, the first Respondent

submitted two certificates issued by M/s Alpa Laboratories

Limited and M/s Mylan Laboratories Limited. The first

certificate showed that the first Respondent had

2 experience in testing as she worked in M/s Alpa

Laboratories from 07.09.2012 to 05.03.2014. The

certificate issued by M/s Mylan Laboratories was to the

effect that the first Respondent worked as Analyst in

quality control during the period 13.04.2014 to

19.03.2015.

4. The first Respondent qualified in the combined

computer-based recruitment test. Initially, 496 candidates

were called for interview by a notice dated 16.09.2015 for

selection to 147 posts of Drug Inspector which were

advertised. In the said list the name of the first

Respondent was not there. Thereafter, another notice was

issued by the Appellant on 08.04.2016, calling 723

candidates for interview. The first Respondent was

amongst those who were asked to attend the interview.

She submitted the relevant documents regarding the

requisite experience. By a communication dated

08.07.2016, the candidature of the first Respondent was

cancelled on the ground that she lacked the necessary

experience in testing of substances specified in Schedule

‘C’ in a laboratory approved by the licensing authority.

3

5. The non-consideration of the first Respondent for

selection to the post of Drug Inspector was challenged in

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. By an

interim order dated 05.08.2016, the Tribunal directed the

Appellant to permit the first Respondent to participate in

the selection. As the final result was declared during the

pendency of the OA, the Tribunal passed an order making

the declaration of result subject to the outcome of the

Original Application.

6. The Tribunal finally allowed the Original Application

and directed the Appellant to interview the first

Respondent and in case she secures a score which is more

than the last selected candidate in her category she was

permitted to be recommended for appointment.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the

Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was

dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

8. The controversy in the present appeal is regarding

the fulfillment of the condition of experience as required by

the Advertisement. As stated earlier, the requisite

experience for appointment as Drug Inspector is 18

4 months in the field of quality control and in testing of

drugs prescribed in Schedule ‘C’ and ‘C-1’ in the Drugs and

Cosmetics Rules. Certificates that were produced by the

first Respondent which were issued by M/s Alpa

Laboratories and M/s Mylan Laboratories are placed on

record. The certificate issued by M/s Mylan lab on

17.04.2016 would disclose that the first Respondent was

involved in different stages of testing in quality control unit

of the plant. She was also involved in testing of one of the

drugs specified in Schedule ‘C’ and ‘C-1’ of the Drugs and

Cosmetics Rules. According to the certificate, the first

Respondent worked for two years from 13.04.2014 in M/s

Mylan Laboratories. The requirement of 18 months’,

according to the Advertisement is for a period of two years

prior to 01.03.2015. As the certificate does not satisfy the

requirement of the Advertisement in view of the period

from 13.04.2014 to 01.03.2015 being less than 18 months,

it was rightly not taken into consideration. The other

certificate that was produced by the first Respondent

before the Appellant was issued by M/s Alpa Laboratories

on 05.03.2014. The first Respondent was certified to have

5 worked with M/s Alpa Laboratories from 07.09.2012 to

05.03.2014 in the quality control department. It was

mentioned in the certificate that the first Respondent was

carrying on all activities relating to quality control

department such as RM/PM sampling and analysis as well

as water sampling and testing, documentations, online

quality checks, training etc. there is no mention of the first

Respondent having experience in testing Schedule ‘C’

drugs. The candidature of the first Respondent was

rejected on the ground that the said certificate issued by

M/s Alpa Laboratories could not satisfy the eligibility

conditions mentioned in the Advertisement. Yet another

certificate dated 17.03.2015 issued by the M/s Alpa

Laboratories was relied upon by the first Respondent.

According to the said certificate, the first Respondent

worked for 18 months and had experience in testing of

drugs specified in Schedule ‘C’ and ‘C-1’ of the Rules. This

certificate discloses that the job done by the first

Respondent was only for experience purpose without any

remuneration.

6

9. In the reply filed to the Original Application in the

Central Administrative Tribunal, the Appellant stated that

the certificate issued by M/s Alpa Laboratories did not

mention about Schedule ‘C’ drugs. As stated earlier, the

first Respondent produced two certificates issued by M/s

Alpa Laboratories. The first one was issued on 05.03.2014

in which there was no mention of her experience in testing

Schedule ‘C’ drugs. The second certificate is dated

17.03.2015 which refers to her experience in testing

Schedule ‘C’ and ‘C-1’ drugs. It is relevant to note that the

first Respondent submitted her online application form on

16.03.2015 and the second certificate issued by M/s Alpa

Laboratories is dated 17.03.2015.

10. The Tribunal was not impressed with the prevaricating

stands of the Appellant in rejecting the candidature of the

first Respondent. Submissions made on behalf of the

Appellant relating to M/s Alpa Laboratories not being a duly

licensed firm and the experience certificate not mentioning

Schedule ‘C’ drugs were rejected. The contention of the

Appellant that the certificate dated 17.03.2015 cannot be

relied upon as the experience was on a non-remunerative

7 job was also not accepted by the Tribunal. The High Court

affirmed the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the

ground that the Appellant did not take a firm stand about

the actual reason for rejection of the first Respondent’s

candidature.

11. The certificate dated 05.03.2014 issued by M/s Alpa

Laboratories was the only certificate produced by the first

Respondent before the Appellant. According to the learned

counsel for the Appellant, the second certificate dated

17.03.2015 showing the experience of the first Respondent

in testing Schedule ‘C’ drugs was not produced along with

the certificate dated 05.03.2014. In any event, the said

certificate which showed the experience of the first

Respondent for 18 months in testing Schedule ‘C’ drugs on

a non-remunerative job is doubtful. The said certificate

was issued a day after the first Respondent has submitted

her online application on 16.03.2015. It is relevant to note

that the certificate dated 17.03.2015 discloses that no

salary was paid to the first Respondent for the work done

was only for experience purpose. The decision of the

Appellant that the first Respondent does not fulfil the

8 eligibility criterion is correct. The Tribunal and the High

Court ought not to have interfered with the said decision.

12. In view of the above, we are not in agreement with

the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal which

was affirmed by the High Court in favour of the first

Respondent. We set aside the judgment of the High Court

and allow this appeal.

...............................J. [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…...........................J. [HEMANT GUPTA] New Delhi, August 26, 2019

9