MAHESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & ANR. versus SURESH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 22-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
l' 
• 
769 
MAHESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & ANR. 
v. 
SURESH SINGH AND ORS. 
March 22, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND V. R. KRISHNA IYER, JJ.] 
Drugs (and Cosmetics) Rules 1945--Section 49-Prescribing qualifications of 
Inspectors-"has at/east one Year"s post graduate training in a laboratory tinder a 
Govcrn111ent Analyst appointed under the Act or a Clien1ical Exatniner-Mean-
ing of "Post graduate 
training" occurring in Rule 49(c)-Difference between 
"post {(raduate training" and post graduate course qualification." 
The appellants, all science fJ'aduates, with laboratory training were the suc-
cessful candidates for twelve vacancies of Drug 
Inspectors advertised by the 
Bihar Public Service Commission. 
Respondent No. 1, 
a Pharmacy graduate 
\Vhose application was rejected on the ground of his unsuitability for being ap· 
pointed to the post challenged the selection by a writ on the ground that that the 
appellants were unqualifid under Rule 49(c) of the Drugs (arid Cosmetics) Rules 
1945 in as m•ch as they did not have a systematic training in a post graduate 
instituion. The High Court accepted the contention and set aside the selection. 
,On appeal by special leave he Court, 
l-IELD: (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 ROSt 
A 
B 
c 
D 
of a Drugs Inspector the person concerned_ must have received training under any 
E 
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 qualifications is in a better position to imbibe 
the training v.:hich 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 enrol· 
ment in an institution imparting post graduate training. [772D-F] 
(ii) Clause (c) of Rule 49 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 
v:ho has enrolled himself in a post.graduate institution would receive training in 
a laboratory under a Government Analyst or a Chemical Examiner. A fair indi· 
cation 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 can-
didate applying for the post of a Drugs Inspector. It could not have been inten· 
<led that it would be enough to make a candidate eligible for the post of a Drugs 
In:::.pector if, after graduation in medlcine 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 gra· 
duate 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] 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 
I11 matters involving considerations of questions. regarding adequacy or suffi-
ciency of "training" the Public Service Commission having the benefit of expert 
opinion, is better situated to judge '.Vhether the particular candidate is qaulified 
for a particular post and courts should hesitate to interfere with the discretion of 
the appointin:~ attthority so long as it is exercised bona fide. 
[773 G-l-l] 
[Their Lordships considered that, in view of the conclusion that the appellants 
were duly qualified it was unnecessary to go into the question of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.