- (1.) WE have heard Shri Manu Khare, Shri Gopal Misra, Shri A.P. Srivastava and Shri N.K. Pandey for the petitioners and Appellant. Shri J.K. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appears for the State.
(2.) IN all the three writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing the corrigendum dated 9.7.2010 published on 11.7.2010 in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran'. They have also prayed for writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to reject their application form. All the petitioners in the three writ petitions claimed to be qualified as per the Advertisement No. 4 of 2009 -10 for selection on the post of Drug Inspectors under the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers Service Rules, 1995. The advertisement prescribed essential qualifications; Degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Science or Medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law. By the impugned corrigendum, the Commission on the directions of the State Government has included 18 months' experience in testing of atleast one of the substances in Schedule -C and 3 years experience in the inspection of firms manufacturing any of the substances specified in Schedule -C in the licensed firms engaged in the manufacture of drugs, as essential qualification for the post.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel was required to seek instructions in the matter. He informs the Court that earlier Writ Petition No. 8978 of 2010, Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Ors. (was decided on 22.2.2010 holding that experience is only for the purposes of inspection and not essential qualification. Special Appeal No. 593 of 2010 against the judgment is pending. Learned Standing Counsel informed that at Lucknow Writ Petition No. 5606 (SS) of 2010, Zunab Ali and Ors. (Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (was allowed following the judgment in Vinod Kumar Gupta's case on 27.8.2010. Special Appeal No. 804 of 2010 was filed by the State of U.P. and was dismissed on 29.11.2010 on following reasoning: Thus, for being eligible for being considered for appointment as Drug Inspector, neither the State Government can require any additional essential qualification to be prescribed for the purpose nor any such advertisement can be issued nor the Commission would be at liberty to issue any advertisement prescribing the essential qualification, which are not inconformity with the aforesaid rules. If any such advertisement is issued or has been issued, which is contrary or so to say not in accordance with the aforesaid rules, the same is necessarily to be corrected and for that purpose, corrigendum has to be issued. A bare reading of the aforesaid rules shows that the essential qualification for appointment on the post of Drug Inspector is of having a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law. This is the essential qualification for being appointed on the post of Inspector. The proviso attached to the aforesaid Rule is only the prescription of experience of 18 months to the Inspectors already appointed for being entrusted the job of inspection. The proviso does not lay down any essential qualification for being appointed as Inspector, but only speaks about the period of experience, when such an Inspector may be authorized for inspection. Unless a person is appointed as Inspector, as envisaged in Clause (i), there would be no occasion for him to entrust the work of inspection and for making such authorization, 18 months' experience is necessary. In case the government wanted to introduce some period of experience for appointment on the post of Inspector, it could be done only by making or amending the rules, as may be permissible under law. The U.P. Public Service Commission since had incorrectly issued the advertisement laying down sub - Clause (ii) of Rule 49 as an essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Inspector, which was governed by Sub -rule (i), if has clarified the aforesaid position by issuing the corrigendum for correcting the mistake committed by it, there cannot be any exception nor it can be said that the Commission lacked competence. We thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed.;