- (1.) The Writ Petitioners have challenged the rejection of their applications by the Union Public Service Commission on the ground that they had not fulfilled the eligibility criteria in terms of requisite experience before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the Writ Petitioners. Aggrieved by the above dismissal, the Writ Petitioners filed Writ Petition before this Court. After hearing both sides and adverting to the relevant documents, we finally dismissed the Writ Petition by our detailed order dated 22.9.2015.
(2.) The present Review Application has been moved by the Writ Petitioners praying for review of the above order passed by this Court on the ground that no candidate was required to possess the experience in the manufacture of substances or testing thereof or inspection of drugs prior to appointment as Drug Inspector in terms of Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 and the advertisement issued on 28.8.2010 for filling up the post of Drug Inspectors.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the review applicants vehemently submitted referring to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the Recruitment Rules, 2010 and the above advertisement issued by UPSC that experience as Drug Inspector was not at all required for applying for the post of Drug Inspector. It is his further submission that Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 contemplate acquisition of such experience only during the tenure of the respective candidate as Drug Inspector after appointment. Therefore, the prescription of experience found in the advertisement is applicable to the post appointment scenario.;