PETITIONER:
MAHESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SURESH SINGH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/03/1976
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1404 1976 SCR (3) 769
1977 SCC (1) 627
ACT:
Drugs (and Cosmetics) Rules 1945-Section 49-Prescribing
qualifications of Inspectors-"has atleast one Year's post
graduate training in a laboratory under a Government Analyst
appointed under the Act or a Chemical Examiner-Meaning of
"Post graduate training" occurring in Rule 49(c)-Difference
between "post graduate training" and post graduate course
qualification."
HEADNOTE:
The appellants, all science graduates with laboratory
training were the successful candidates for twelve vacancies
of Drug Inspectors advertised by the Bihar Public Service
Commission. Respondent No. 1, Pharmacy graduate whose
application was rejected on the ground of his unsuitability
for being appointed to the post challenged the selection by
a writ on the ground that the appellants were unqualified
under Rule 49(c) of the Drugs (and Cosmetics) Rules 1945 in
as much as they did not have a systematic training in a post
graduate institution. The High Court accepted the contention
and set aside the selection.
On appeal by special leave he Court,
^
HELD: (1) The expression "post graduate training" is
used in Rule 49(c) in the sense of training received by a
person holding a degree in medicine or science and not in
the sense that such training ought to be received in or
through a post graduate institution imparting instruction or
education in the particular discipline. The object of clause
(c) is to ensure that to be eligible for the post of a Drugs
Inspector the person concerned must have received training
under any of the authorities mentioned therein after
graduation in medicine or science. Pregraduation training is
often not as efficacious as post graduate training, for a
person holding a higher educational qualifications is in a
better position to imbibe the training which he receives.
The expression "post graduate training" is used in order to
signify the point of time after which the training ought to
be received and not to limit the eligibility to those who
have received training after enrolment in an institution
imparting post graduate training. [772D-F]
(ii) Clause (c) of Rule 49 specifies that the training
has to be received in a laboratory under a Government
Analyst or a Chemical Examiner amongst others. It is
difficult to conceive in the present educational set up that
a student who has enrolled himself in a post-graduate
institution would receive training in a laboratory under a
Government Analyst or a Chemical Examiner. A fair indication
of the true intendment of Rule 49(c) is also furnished by
the requirement that one year's post graduate training is
enough to confer eligibility on a candidate applying for the
post of a Drugs Inspector. It could not have been intended
that it would be enough to make a candidate eligible for the
post of a Drugs Inspector if, after graduation in medicine
or science he enrolled himself for a post graduate course
and just took one years' training as part of that course. If
enrolment in an institution imparting post-graduate
instruction was the object of rule (c), the minimum
qualification prescribed would at least have been the
successful completion of the post graduate course. [772F-H]
Rule 44(a) throws useful, light on the interpretation
of Rule 49. Post graduate experience stipulated in Rule
44(a) and "post graduate training" cannot basically and for
practical purposes identical qualifications. For both posts,
what is required in addition to other qualifications
mentioned in the respective rules is post graduate
experience or training in the sense, namely that the
experience or training has to be gained or received after
obtaining graduation. [773-B-C]
770
In matters involving considerations of questions
regarding adequacy or sufficiency of "training" the Public
Service Commission having the benefit of expert opinion, is
better situated to judge whether the particular candidate is
qualified for a particular post and courts should hesitate
to interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority
so long as it is exercised bona fide. [773 G-H]
[Their Lordships considered that, in view of the
conclusion that the appellants were duly qualified it was
unnecessary to go into the question of "Locus Standi" of
respondent No. 1 a rejected candidate on the ground of his
unsuitability to file the writ petition.]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 602
and 603 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and
Order/decree dated the 30-1-1975 of the Patna High Court in
C. W. J. C. No. 502 of 1973.
V. S. Desai and S. N. Prasad for Appellants in C.A.
602/75.
Bishan Narain, S. N. Misra, S. S. Jauhar and A. K.
Sinha for Appellants in C. A. 603/75.
S. C. Misra and U. S. Prasad for respondent No. 1 (In
both appeals).
B. P. Singh and U. P. Singh for Respondent No. 2 (In C.
A. 603) and Respondents 2 and 3 (In C. A. 602).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, J.-These appeals by special leave arise
out of a judgment of the Patna High Court in a writ petition
filed by the 1st respondent under articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution challenging the appointment of the
appellants as Drugs Inspectors. Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1975
is filed by original respondent 7 while Civil Appeal 603 of
1975 is filed by original respondents 4 to 6 to the Writ
Petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition and
quashed the appointments of the appellants on the ground
that they did not have the requisite qualification for
appointment as Drugs Inspectors.
The Government of Bihar in its Health Department
advertised through the Bihar Public Service Commission 12
vacancies of Inspectors of Drugs. Twenty candidates applied
for the posts out of whom 13, including respondent 1, were
Pharmacy Graduates while 7 including the appellants, were
Science Graduates. The Public Service Commission held
interviews in April, 1972 and selected the appellants
amongst others. Respondent 1 was rejected on the ground that
he was not suitable for the post.
The appointments of the appellants were challenged by
respondent 1 on the sole ground that they were not qualified
to be appointed as Drugs Inspectors. Rule 49 of the Drugs
(and Cosmetics) Rules, 1945 framed by the Government of
India in the Ministry of Health, prescribes qualifications
for the post of a Drugs Inspector. It reads as follows:-
“49. Qualifications of Inspectors.-A person who is
771
appointed an Inspector under the Act shall be a person
who-
(a) has a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical
Chemistry or a post-graduate degree in
Chemistry with Pharmaceutics as a special
subject of a University recognised for this
purpose by the appointing authority or the
associateship Diploma of the Institution of
Chemists (India) obtained by passing the
examination with `Analysis of Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals’ as one of the subjects; or
(aa) holds the Pharmaceutical Chemists Diploma
granted by the Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain; or
(b) x x x
(c) is a graduate in medicine or science of a
University recognised for this purpose by the
appointing authority and has at least one
year’s post-graduate training in a laboratory
under (i) a Government Analyst appointed
under the Act or (ii) a Chemical Examiner, or
(iii) a Fellow of the Royal Institute of
Chemistry of Great Britain (Branch E), or
(iv) the head of an institution specially
approved for the purpose by the appointing
authority;
Provided that only those inspectors who have not
less than three years’ experience in the manufacture
and testing of substances specified in Schedule in a
laboratory approved for this purpose by the licensing
authority, shall be authorised to inspect the
manufacture of items mentioned in Schedule C;
Provided further that only Inspectors who are
graduates in veterinary science or medicine or general
science or pharmacy and have had not less than three
years’ experience in the manufacture or testing of
biological products shall be authorised to inspect the
manufacture of veterinary biological products;
Provided further that for a period of four years
from the date on which Chapter IV of the Act takes
effect in the States, persons whose qualifications,
training and experience are regarded by the appointing
authority as affording subject to such further
training, if any, as may be considered necessary, a
reasonable guarantee of adequate knowledge and
competence may be appointed as Inspectors and
authorised under the preceding proviso:
Provided further that for the purposes of
inspection of shops in any specified area any officer
of the medical or Public Health Department who is a
registered medical practitioner or a graduate in
science may be appointed as an ex officio Inspector.
772
Appellants do not fall within the class described in clause
(a) above but respondent 1 who is a Pharmacy Graduate does.
The fact that respondent 1 is qualified to hold the post of’
a Drugs Inspector is undisputed and his application was
rejected by the Public Service Commission not on the ground
that he did not hold the necessary qualification for the
post but on the ground that he was unsuitable for being
appointed to the post. The appellants being Science
graduates fall within clause (c) of Rule 49 and there can be
no doubt that in addition to being Science graduates of a
recognised University, they have to possess at least “one
year’s post-graduate training” in a laboratory under the
authorities mentioned in clause (c). It is not disputed that
the appellants and worked for a fairly large number of years
in laboratories under one or the other authorities mentioned
in clause (c). but the question for decision is whether they
had received any “training” and if so, the training which
they had received was “post-graduate training” within the
meaning of clause (c).
The contention of respondent 1 which found favour with
the High Court is that “post-graduate training” means
systematic training in a post-graduate institution and since
the appellants had not received such training through any
post-graduate institution, they were not qualified to hold
the particular post. The High Court, in our opinion, erred
in accepting this contention. The expression “post-graduate
training” is used in rule 49(c) in the sense of training
received by a person holding a degree in medicine or science
and not in the sense that such training ought to be received
in or through a post-graduate institution imparting
instruction or education in the particular discipline. The
object of clause (c) is to ensure that to be eligible for
the post of a Drugs Inspector the person concerned must have
received training under any of the authorities mentioned
therein after graduation in medicine or science. Pre-
graduation training is often not as efficacious as post-
graduate training, for a person holding a higher educational
qualification is in a better position to imbibe the training
which he receives. Thus, the expression “post-graduate
training ought to be received and not to limit the
eligibility to those who have received training after
enrolment in an institution imparting post-graduate
training. Clause (c) specifies that the training has to be
received in a laboratory under a Government Analyst or a
Chemical Examiner amongst others. It is difficult to
conceive in the present educational set-up that a student
who has enrolled himself in a post-graduate institution
would receive training in a laboratory under a Government
Analyst or a Chemical Examiner. A fair indication of the
true intendment of Rule 49(c) is also furnished by the
requirement that one year’s post-graduate training is enough
to confer eligibility on a candidate applying for the post
of a Drugs Inspector. Post-graduate courses normally extend
over a period exceeding one year after graduation. It could
not have been intended that it would be enough to make a
candidate eligible for the post of a Drugs Inspector if,
after graduation in medicine or science he enrolled himself
for a post-graduate course and just took one year’s training
as part of that course. If enrolment in an institution
imparting post-graduate instruction was the object of rule
(c), the minimum qualification prescribed would at least
have been the successful completion of the post-graduate
course.
773
Rule 44 which prescribed qualifications for the post of
Government Analyst throws useful light on the interpretation
of rule 49. Rule 44 provides that only those persons can be
appointed as Government Analysts who are Graduates in
medicine or science or pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry
and who have had “not less than three years’ post-graduate
experience” in the analysis of drugs in a laboratory under
the control of designated authorities. If a post-graduate
course extends over a period of 2 years only, as it normally
does, it is odd that in order that in order to qualify for
the post of a Government Analyst a graduate in the specified
discipline should be required to spend 3 years as a post-
graduate student. Post-graduate experience stipulated in
rule 44(a) and post-graduate training stipulated in rule
49(c) connote basically and for practical purposes an
identical qualification. For both posts” what is required in
addition to other qualifications mentioned in the respective
rules is post-graduate experience or training in the sense
described above, namely, that the experience or training has
to be gained or received after obtaining graduation.
Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava the appellant in Civil
Appeal No. 602 of 1975, passed his B.Sc. examination in 1960
and worked as a Demonstrator in the Pharmacy School, Patna
under the Health Department, Government of Bihar from
October, 1961 to December, 1966. He was appointed as a
Senior Scientific Assistant in the Bihar Drugs Control
Laboratory on December 23, 1966 where he worked under Dr.
Sheo Bihari Lal, who was the Government Analyst in charge of
the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory. It appears that the
Government of Bihar through the Health Department used to
send science graduates for training under the Government
Analyst. The certificate issued by Dr. S. B. Lal shows that
Srivastava worked under him and had been “trained” for more
than three years in the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory. A
letter written by Dr. Lal to the Deputy Director of the
Health Services, Bihar on December 22, 1970 shows that
during his absence on leave, Srivastava was to hold charge
of the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory. These facts make it
impossible to accept the contention that the appellant had
not received any systematic training. In the ultimate
analysis, the usefulness of any training depends as much on
the ability and willingness of the student or trainee as on
the academic specifications of the training itself. The
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 603 of 1975 had worked as
Demonstrators in Pharmacy School, Patna for a large number
of years and in regard to them also it is difficult to
accept the contention that the training which, they had
received was not systematic. Dr. J. K. P. Sinha who was then
the Deputy Director of Health Services, Bihar and who
assisted the Public Service Commission as a Technical Expert
when the interviews for the particular posts were held,
obviously took the view that the appellants who were science
graduates satisfied the further test of post-graduate
training for not less than one year. In matters involving
consideration of questions regarding adequacy or sufficiency
of “training”, the Public Service Commission, having the
benefit of expert opinion, is better situated to judge
whether the Particular candidate is qualified for a
particular post and courts should hesitated to interfere
with the direction of the appointing authority, so long as
it is exercised bona fide.
774
Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.
602 of 1975 contended that respondent No. 1 had no locus
standi to challenge the appointment of the appellant since
he himself, as disclosed by the affidavit filed. On behalf
of the Public Service Commission in the High Court, was
rejected on the ground that he “was not found suitable for
appointment to the post” of Drugs Inspector. In view of our
conclusion that the appellants were duly qualified for the
post, it is unnecessary to go into this question.
For these reasons we allow the appeals, set aside the
judgment of the High Court and hold that the appointments of
the appellants as Drugs Inspectors were lawful and valid.
The State of Bihar will pay the costs of these appeals
to the appellants.
SR Appeal allowed
775