Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Drug Inspector Posts: Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019)

Date of the Judgment: May 03, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 419

Judges: Arun Mishra, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can experience in a research and development laboratory be considered equivalent to the practical experience required for manufacturing and testing of drugs for the purposes of recruitment to the posts of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the requirements for these positions. The Court held that research experience cannot be equated with practical manufacturing and testing experience, emphasizing the importance of the specific qualifications outlined in the recruitment advertisement. This judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Navin Sinha, with Justice Navin Sinha authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued advertisements on 04.01.2012 and 31.03.2015 for the recruitment of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors, respectively. The advertisements specified the required qualifications, including practical experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs. Some candidates who possessed experience in research and development laboratories applied for these positions. The MPSC initially considered these candidates eligible, but later declared them ineligible, leading to a dispute that reached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal initially ruled that experience in a research and development laboratory could not be considered equivalent to the required experience in the manufacture and testing of drugs for the recruitment. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, however, reversed the Tribunal’s decision, holding that research experience in the synthesis and testing of drugs should be considered as relevant experience. The High Court stated that denying opportunity to candidates with research experience would be a perverse interpretation of the eligibility conditions. The MPSC then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Section 3(f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which defines “manufacture” in relation to drugs. The Court quoted the provision verbatim:

“3(f) “manufacture” in relation to any drugs (or cosmetic) includes any process or part of a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, packing, labelling, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to its sale or distribution but does not include the compounding or dispensing of any drug or the packing of any drop or cosmetic in the ordinary course of retail business and to manufacture shall be construed accordingly.”

The Court also considered the specific qualifications mentioned in the advertisements for the posts of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors. The advertisement for Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) required a degree in Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, or medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology, along with five years of experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs or enforcement of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The advertisement for Drug Inspectors required a similar degree along with three years of experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs or enforcement of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Additionally, a preference was to be given to candidates with a post-graduate degree or research experience in the synthesis and testing of drugs.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Maharashtra Public Service Commission):

• The MPSC argued that the essential qualifications for the posts required practical experience in the manufacturing and testing of drugs.
• They contended that research experience in a research and development laboratory was only a desirable qualification, not equivalent to the essential practical experience.
• The MPSC submitted that the High Court erred in reinterpreting the advertisement to treat the desirable qualification as an essential one.

Arguments by the Respondents (Candidates):

• The candidates argued that they possessed post-graduate degrees (M.Pharma) and had more than three years of experience in research and development, including testing of drugs in a laboratory.
• They submitted that their experience should be considered equivalent to the required practical experience.
• They relied on the definition of “manufacture” in Section 3(f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to support their claim.
• They also argued that since they were permitted to participate in the selection process after scrutiny of their documents, they should not be declared ineligible.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether candidates possessing the requisite years of experience in research and development of drugs and testing of the same are also eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the advertisement. The Court emphasized that the essential qualifications for the posts required practical experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs, and that research experience in a laboratory was only a desirable qualification. The Court stated that the employer is best suited to decide the requirements for a post and that the court cannot substitute its own opinion on the matter. The Court also held that the preference clause in the advertisement does not mean that merely having research experience makes a candidate eligible for the post.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court approved the view taken in Secretary (Health), Department of Health & F.W. and Another vs. Dr. Anita Puri and Others, 1996 (6) SCC 282*, stating that a preference for higher qualifications does not automatically entitle a candidate to be selected if they do not meet the essential qualifications.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The employer may prescribe additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of preference. It is the employer who is best suited to decide the requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of the employer and the nature of work. The court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re­writing of the advertisement.”

“Manufacture has been defined as a process for making, altering, ornamenting, finishing, packing, labelling, breaking up or otherwise treating or adopting any drug or cosmetic with a view to its sale or distribution. Therefore, the experience of testing has to be correlated to the manufacturing process which naturally will be entirely different from the testing carried out in the research and development laboratory before the product is released for manufacture and sale in the market.”

“The preference clause in Clause 4.7 only means that if a candidate with the required degree qualification and practical experience in the manufacturing and testing of drugs for stipulated period of years has an additional desirable attribute of a research experience in a research laboratory, other things being equal, preference could be given to such a candidate.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear distinction between the essential and desirable qualifications specified in the recruitment advertisements. The Court emphasized that the employer, in this case, the MPSC, has the authority to set the eligibility criteria for its posts, and the judiciary should not interfere with this unless there is a clear violation of law or rules. The Court also focused on the difference between the testing of drugs in a research and development lab and the testing done during the manufacturing process, concluding that these are not equivalent.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• Research experience in a laboratory is not equivalent to practical experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs for the purpose of eligibility for the posts of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors.
• Employers have the authority to set the essential qualifications for a post, and courts should not interfere with this unless there is a clear violation of law or rules.
• A preference for higher or additional qualifications does not automatically entitle a candidate to be selected if they do not meet the essential qualifications.
• The testing of drugs in a research and development laboratory is different from the testing carried out during the manufacturing process.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and upheld the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The appeals were allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that experience in research and development of drugs and testing of the same is not equivalent to the experience in manufacture or testing of drugs for the purpose of eligibility for the post of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors. This judgment reinforces the principle that employers have the authority to determine the essential qualifications for a post and that courts should not interfere with this unless there is a clear violation of law or rules. It also clarifies that a preference for additional qualifications does not override the need to meet the essential qualifications.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case clarifies that practical experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs is essential for the posts of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors, and that research experience in a laboratory is not equivalent to this. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the qualifications specified in the recruitment advertisements and upheld the employer’s authority to set eligibility criteria. This decision provides clarity on the qualifications required for these positions and reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with the employer’s discretion in setting eligibility criteria.