In a significant legal case before the Supreme Court of India, the eligibility criteria for the position of Drug Inspector has been under scrutiny. The dispute revolves around the first Respondent’s candidature and the fulfillment of experience requirements. Stay tuned to learn more about the judgment and its implications in the case.
Facts
- The current appeal deals with the eligibility of the first Respondent for direct recruitment as a Drug Inspector.
- The main point in consideration is the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post.
- This part of the judgment focuses on whether the first Respondent meets the eligibility requirements for the position.
- The decision will impact the appointment process for the post of Drug Inspector.
- First Respondent’s candidature was cancelled due to lack of necessary experience in testing of substances specified in Schedule ‘C’
- First Respondent challenged non-consideration for selection in Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench
- Tribunal allowed Original Application and directed the Appellant to interview First Respondent
- If First Respondent secures a score higher than the last selected candidate in her category, she was to be recommended for appointment
- Appellant filed Writ Petition in High Court which was dismissed
- Tribunal’s order made declaration of result subject to outcome of Original Application
- Tribunal directed Appellant to permit First Respondent to participate in selection process
Also Read: Supreme Court Ruling on Dowry Harassment and Suicide Case
Analysis
- The Appellant rejected the first Respondent’s candidature for the position of Drug Inspector based on the experience certificate provided by M/s Alpa Laboratories.
- The certificate dated 17.03.2015 stated that the work done was for experience purposes only and not remunerative.
- The requirement for experience as per the Advertisement was 18 months prior to 01.03.2015 in testing Schedule ‘C’ drugs.
- The first Respondent’s certificate from M/s Alpa Laboratories dated 05.03.2014 showed 2 years of experience in testing but did not mention testing Schedule ‘C’ drugs.
- Another certificate dated 17.03.2015 mentioned experience in testing Schedule ‘C’ drugs but was produced after the online application submission.
- The Tribunal and High Court did not interfere with the Appellant’s decision to reject the first Respondent’s candidature for not meeting the eligibility criteria.
- The Appellant’s argument that the first Respondent’s experience certificate did not mention Schedule ‘C’ drugs was not accepted.
- The first Respondent’s second certificate from M/s Alpa Laboratories showed testing of Schedule ‘C’ drugs but its reliability was questioned.
- The first Respondent also presented a certificate from M/s Mylan Laboratories indicating work as an Analyst from 13.04.2014 to 19.03.2015.
- Overall, the issue revolved around the fulfilment of experience criteria as specified in the Advertisement and the discrepancies in the certificates submitted by the first Respondent.
- The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court in favor of the first Respondent.
- The High Court’s judgment was set aside.
- The appeal was allowed in this case.
Also Read: Case of Technical Equipment Officer Appointment Criteria Dispute
Case Title: UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. SHRISTI SINGH
Case Number: C.A. No.-006618-006618 / 2019
