(L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.)
Miscellaneous Application No. 1282 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 6618 of 2019, decided on August 25, 2021
Union Public Service Commission ______________________ Appellant;
v.
Shristi Singh and Others __________________________ Respondent(s).
And in the Matter of
Srishti Singh … Applicant(s);
Miscellaneous Application No. 1282 of 2021 and Civil Appeal No. 6618 of 2019
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The applicant applied for appointment as Drug Inspector in Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in response to the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’) in the year 2015. According to the advertisement, a candidate for selection to the post of Drug Inspector should have a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a recognized University or equivalent. That apart, 18 months experience is required in the manufacture of at least one of the substances specified in Schedule ‘C’ to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945; or 18 months experience in testing of at least one of the substances specified in Schedule ‘C’ to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (‘the Rules’) in a laboratory approved for the said purpose by the licensing authority. The applicant furnished two certificates to show compliance with the experience that was required. Those certificates were issued by M/s. Alpa Laboratories Ltd. and M/s. Mylan Laboratories Ltd. The applicant qualified in the combined computer-based recruitment test. The name of the applicant was not included in the list of 496 candidates who were called for interview for selection to 147 posts of Drug Inspectors. Thereafter, another list was issued calling 723 candidates for interview in which the name of the applicant was included. However, the applicant was not considered for appointment as Drug Inspector on the ground that the certificates furnished by her did not satisfy the requirement of the advertisement and the rules fulfilling the requisite experience. The applicant challenged her non-consideration for selection to the post of Drug Inspector before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in the year 2016. The said Tribunal allowed the original application, aggrieved by which the UPSC filed the writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. The UPSC approached this Court questioning the judgment of the High Court by raising the contention that the applicant did not fulfill the condition of experience as required in the advertisement.
2. This Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2019 allowed the appeal filed by UPSC and held that the applicant does not fulfill the eligible criteria.
3. Other candidates who participated in the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2015 for selection to the post of Drug Inspector filed Original Applications which were disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench on 22.03.2018. The Tribunal directed the UPSC to re-examine the claims of the applicants for selection/appointment to the post of Drug Inspector without insisting on the experience as notified in the advertisement. The High Court upheld the judgment dated 22.03.2018 of the aforesaid Tribunal by holding that the requirement of experience as provided in Rule 49 of the Rules applies only after appointment and for the purpose of deciding whether a Drug Inspector is authorized to test specified substances and inspect the manufacturer of substances specified in Schedule ‘C’. The condition of experience which was included in the advertisement on the basis of the Recruitment Rules, 2010 was found to be untenable. The said judgment of the High Court was the subject matter of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 3437-3456 of 2021 (Director General, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization v. Nidhi Pandey) which was dismissed by an order dated 05.04.2021.
4. This application is filed for a direction to the UPSC to call the applicant for the interview which are being held for selection and appointment to the post of Drug Inspector pursuant to the advertisement which was issued in the year 2015. By a notice dated 02.08.2021, the UPSC informed 34 candidates to appear for interviews between 23.8.2021 and 25.08.2021 for being considered for selection to the post of Drug Inspector by way of implementation of the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in Original Application No. 2390 of 2016 etc. The applicant has filed this application seeking consideration for appointment as Drug Inspector along with the said 34 candidates. The non-consideration of the applicant initially was due to her not possessing the requisite experience. The interviews that are being conducted at present is of those applicants/candidates who were before the Tribunal and were directed to be considered without insisting on experience. The applicant approached the Tribunal immediately after coming to know that she was not being considered for lack of requisite experience and has succeeded before the Tribunal and the High Court. Though this Court found her to be ineligible as she did not have the requisite experience, the applicant is entitled to be considered for interview along with 34 candidates who are similarly situated and who are being interviewed by the UPSC.
5. Therefore, we direct the UPSC to permit the applicant to participate in the interview along with other candidates for appointment as Drug Inspector on 26.08.2021. We make it clear that this order is being passed in the peculiar facts of this case, especially, taking note of the fact that the applicant approached the Tribunal immediately after being informed that she was not being considered due to her not possessing the requisite experience.
6. This order shall not be treated as a precedent.
7. With these observations, the Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Miscellaneous Application No. 1282/2021 in C.A. No. 6618/2019
Union Public Service Commission _____________________ Appellant
v.
Shristi Singh & Ors _____________________________ Respondent(s)
And in the Matter of
Srishti Singh.….Applicant(s)
(IA No. 97918/2021-APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)
Date : 25-08-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today.
(Before L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.)
For the parties Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv.
Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, AOR
Mrs. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR
Ms. Priyashree Sharma Ph, Adv.
Ms. Rushali Agarwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
9. The Miscellaneous Application stands disposed in terms of the signed order.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
———
