Non-Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No.  6618  of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.14169 of 2019)

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION .... Appellant(s)

Versus

SHRISTI SINGH & ORS.  …. Respondent (s)

J U D G M E N T

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.  

1. The  point  that  arises  for  our  consideration  in  this

Appeal pertains to the eligibility of the first Respondent for

appointment by way of direct recruitment to the post of

Drug  Inspector  in  the  Central  Drugs  Standard  Control

Organisation  (CDSCO),  Ministry  of  Health  and  Family

Welfare.   

2. The Union Public Service Commission, the Appellant

herein, issued Advertisement No.04 of 2015 inviting online

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