DR. M.C. BINDAL versus R.C. SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 19-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DR. M.C. BINDAL 
v. 
R.C. :SINGH & ORS. 
SEP1EMBER 19,. 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 
1950: Article 320-PubUc Service 
Commission-Duty of-,--Recommend only candidates fulfilling all 
requisite qualifications-On enquiry candidate not found to have rele-
vant and required experience-Commission-Right ta-Withdrawal of 
candidature and cancellation of recommendation. 
The U.P. Public Service Commission made an advertisement in 
various newspapers inviting applications for the post of Food & Drug 
Controller, U.P. The requisite qualification for the said post were 
specified in the advertisement as: (I) a degree from any recognised 
D . University in Medicine/Science/Pharmaceutical Chemistry, and (2) 
experience of five years in Drug Standardization and problems relating 
to control of Drug standards or Drug manufacture or Drug testing in a 
renowned institution. 
Pursuant to the said advertisement Dr. M.C. Bindal, Dr. S.K. 
E 
Majumdar, the appellants in the two appeals C.A. No. 3797 /84 and 
C.A. No. 3926/84 respectively, and Ram Chander Singh, the respon-
dent in the first appeal along with others filed applications. The Com-
mission after holding interview recommended the appointment of (a) in 
the main list-R.C. Singh and (b) in the reserved list-Dr. M.C. Bindal 
(Provisional) and made it clear that the word 'Provisional' denoted that 
F 
the recommendation was subject to the candidate meeting the necessary 
qualification-experience of five years. 
· 
The State of Uttar Pradesh intimated the Commission that the 
candidature of R.C. Singh did not appear to be suitable in view of the 
vigilance enquiry against him, and that Dr; Rindal had the requisite 
G experience of five years. In its reply the Commission intimated that the 
right to appoint or not to appoint a candidate vested with the. State of 
U.P. and it was for th~State Government to take a decision accord-
ingly. On receipt of this letter, the State Government appointed Dr. 
1\1.C. Rindal as Food & Drug Controller. 
i 
H 
Two writ petitions were filed in the High Court, one by R.C. 
-·· . 
36 
• 
M.C. BINDAL v. R.C. SINGH 
37 
Singh and another by S.K. l\lajumdar challenging the appointment of 
Dr. 1\1.C. Bindal on the ground that he had not the requisite experience. 
A 
The High Court by a common judgment allowed in part the writ peti-
tions, and held that though Dr. Rindal is not per se unsuitable or dis-
qualified for the post, his appointment was to b.e treated. as only provi-
sional and subject to the final decision of the State Government. 
• 
B 
Dr. Bind.al appealed to this Court. In· the meantime the Service 
Commission directed one of its officers to verify whether Dr. Rindal 
fulfilled the qualifications relating to practical experience of 5 years in 
Drug Standardization or Drug testing in a renowned institution • .The 
Deputy Secretary after enquiry sent a report that the total period of 
experience of Dr. Bindal. on the date of submission of his application C 
was only 3 years 4 months and 9 days whereas the essential qualification 
required was experience should be for 5 years. The Commission there-
after took the decision: 'that the Commission withdraws and cancels the 
provisional recommendation and the candidature because Dr. Rindal 
did not possess the requisite qualifications'. 
In the appeal and the writ petition it was contended on behalf of 
Dr. Rindal that the Service Commission was wrong and patently in 
error in withdrawing the candidature of the appellant and in cancelling 
its recommendation. 
· 
D 
Allowing C.A. No. 3926 of 1986 filed by Dr. l\lajumdar, and 
E 
dismissing C.A. No. 3797 of 1984, W.P. No. 756 of 1986 filed by Dr; 
Bindal and C.A. No. 3798of1984 filed by the State of U.P., the Court, 
HELD: 1. A candidate in order to be considered for appointment 
for the post must have. to comply with the requisite qualification, 
namely the educational qualification as well as experience. If any of F 
these essential qualifications is lacking then the candidate cannot claim 
to be appointed in the said post. [42E] 
2. Under Article 320(3)(a) and (b), it is the duty of the Public 
Service Commission to consider and to get itself satisfied as to which of 
the candidates has fulfilled the requisite qualifications specified in the 
G 
advertisement. [42G] 
· 
3. The Commission in the instant case has duly got verified the 
certificates of Dr. Rindal in regard to his· experience of five years in 
drug
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.