- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by 18 petitioners praying for a relief to quash the corrigendum dated 9.7.2010, as published in the newspapers on 11.7.2010, in relation to the essential and preferential qualifications, particularly regarding experience for the post of Drug Inspector under Medical Department of the Government of U.P.
(2.) THE challenge was raised to the said corrigendum on several grounds, particularly, taking shelter of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench, i.e.(Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Chauhan) in Writ Petition No.5606 (SS) of 2010 Zunab Ali and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., decided on 27.8.2010, which was upheld in Special Appeal No.804 of 2010, State of U.P. Vs. Zunab Ali and Ors. as well as the judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
(3.) ON having perused the judgments aforesaid, a Division Bench of this Court doubted the correctness of the view taken by the Division Bench at Lucknow in Special Appeal No.804 of 2010, Zunab and Ors. and, accordingly, referred the matter to a larger bench vide order dated 11.2.2011 framing the following two questions: (1) Whether the experience required in the proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is only a bar of authorization to inspect the manufacture of substances, or is an essential qualification under Rule 49 for direct appointment as Drug Inspector under Rule 5(4) of the U.P. State Drug Control Officers' Service Rules, 1995. (2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. Vs. Zunab Ali and Ors. has been correctly decided." The present writ petition along with the entire batch of similar writ petitions were taken up for consideration by a larger bench upon which the reference has been answered vide judgment dated 10.4.2013 which has been placed before us. The reference has been answered in paragraph 27 as follows: "27. We, accordingly, answer the questions referred to the Full Bench as follows: (i) The experience referred to in the first proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 has not been made an essential qualification for appointment as a Drug Inspector. The effect of the first proviso is that only an Inspector who holds the experience as specified in it is authorized to inspect the manufacture of a substance specified in Schedule C to the Rules. (ii) The judgment of the Division Bench in Zunab Ali has been correctly decided.";