http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    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,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

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