Y. V. Chandrachud, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) The Government of Bihar in its Health Department advertised through the Bihar Public Service Commission 12 vacancies of Inspector 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. Respondents 1 was rejected on the ground that he was not suitable for the post.
(3.) 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 qualification for the post of a Drugs Inspector. It reads as follows:- "49. Qualifications of Inspectors - A person who is 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) ********** (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 C 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 offico Inspector. Appellants do not fall within the class described in cl. (a) above but respondent I who is a Pharmacy Graduate does. The fact that respondent 1 is qualified to hold the post of Drugs Inspector in 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 had 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).;