Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) against the judgment of the High Court which had affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in favor of the first respondent, Shristi Singh. The dispute concerned the eligibility of the first respondent for direct recruitment to the post of Drug Inspector in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO). The UPSC had issued Advertisement No.04 of 2015 inviting applications, prescribing qualifications including a degree in Pharmacy or related fields and 18 months' experience in manufacturing or testing of substances specified in Schedule C to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The first respondent applied on 16.03.2015 and submitted two experience certificates: one from M/s Alpa Laboratories Limited (dated 05.03.2014) showing work from 07.09.2012 to 05.03.2014 but not mentioning testing of Schedule C drugs, and another from M/s Mylan Laboratories Limited (dated 17.04.2016) showing work from 13.04.2014 to 19.03.2015 but the period from 13.04.2014 to 01.03.2015 was less than 18 months. The first respondent also produced a second certificate from M/s Alpa Laboratories dated 17.03.2015, issued after her application, claiming 18 months' experience in testing Schedule C drugs on a non-remunerative basis. The UPSC rejected her candidature on the ground that she lacked the requisite experience. The CAT and High Court had ruled in her favor, noting the UPSC's shifting stands. The Supreme Court held that the certificate dated 05.03.2014 did not mention Schedule C drugs, the Mylan certificate did not cover the required period, and the certificate dated 17.03.2015 was issued after the application and indicated non-remunerative work, making it doubtful. The Court concluded that the UPSC's decision to reject her candidature was correct and that the Tribunal and High Court ought not to have interfered. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments below.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Eligibility Criteria - Strict Construction - The eligibility conditions for direct recruitment to public posts must be strictly complied with; the candidate must produce clear and contemporaneous evidence of fulfilling the prescribed qualifications and experience. (Paras 1-11) B) Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Schedule C - Experience Certificate - Specificity Required - An experience certificate that does not explicitly mention testing of substances specified in Schedule C or C-1 cannot be accepted as proof of the requisite experience for the post of Drug Inspector. (Paras 8-9) C) Evidence - Certificate Issued After Application - Doubtful Credibility - A certificate issued after the date of submission of the online application, especially one indicating non-remunerative work, is of doubtful credibility and cannot be relied upon to establish eligibility. (Paras 9, 11) D) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Interference with Eligibility Determination - Courts and Tribunals should not interfere with the decision of the recruiting authority regarding eligibility unless the decision is arbitrary or perverse; mere prevarication in stand does not justify interference if the ultimate decision is correct. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent possessed the requisite 18 months' experience in testing Schedule C drugs in an approved laboratory for the post of Drug Inspector as per the advertisement.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, and upheld the UPSC's decision to reject the candidature of the first respondent for the post of Drug Inspector.
Law Points
- Eligibility conditions for public employment must be strictly construed
- Experience certificates must clearly mention testing of Schedule C drugs
- Experience gained on non-remunerative basis is doubtful
- Courts should not interfere with administrative decisions on eligibility unless perverse
