THE MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY versus SANDEEP SHRIRAM WARADE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 94 · Decided: 03-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
THE MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
v.
SANDEEP SHRIRAM WARADE AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4597 of  2019 etc.)
MAY 03, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Essential eligibility qualification – For appointment to the
posts of Asstt. Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors – Practical
experience in manufacturing and testing of drugs along with
academic qualification were essential qualifications for appointment
– Practical experience in research and development laboratory was
a desirable qualification – Respondents-candidates holding the
desirable experience were declared ineligible for consideration –
State Administrative Tribunal held that the experience of
manufacturing or testing in research and development laboratory
could not be termed as essential qualification for the appointment
– High Court reversing the order of Tribunal held that research
experience would also count as eligibility condition – Appeal to
Supreme Court, held: It is for the employer to decide eligibility
conditions for appointment – The court in the garb of judicial review
cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility by an interpretive re-
writing of the advertisement – Questions of equivalence will also
fall outside the domain of judicial review – Experience of testing of
drugs in a research and development laboratory cannot be said to
be at par with the testing done at the time manufacture – Judicial
Review – Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1961 – s.3(f).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. 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
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 94
94
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
95
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 re-writing of the
advertisement.  Questions of equivalence will also fall outside
the domain of judicial review.  If the language of the advertisement
and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the
same.  If there is an ambiguity in the advertisement or it is contrary
to any rules or law, the matter has to go back to the appointing
authority after appropriate orders, to proceed in accordance with
law.  In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, sit in
the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the
employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement
contrary to the plain language of the same. [Para 10] [98-H;
99-A-C]
2. The fact that an expert committee may have been
constituted and which examined the documents before calling
the candidates for interview cannot operate as an estoppel against
the clear terms of the advertisement to render an ineligible
candidate eligible for appointment. [Para 11] [99-D]
3. ‘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. To say that
experience in testing of drugs in a research and development
laboratory would be at par with the testing done at the time of
manufacture before sale cannot be countenanced and has to be
rejected.  [Para 13] [99-F-H]
4. The term “preference” mentioned in the advertisement
cannot be interpreted to mean that merely because a candidate
may have had the requisite experience of testing in a research
and development laboratory he/she possessed the essential
eligibility and had a preferential right to be considered for
appointment. [Para 14] [100-B]
THE MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMM. THR. ITS
SECY. v. SANDEEP SHRIRAM WARADE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
5. Therefore, the interpretation of the terms of the
advertisement as made by the High Court both with regard to
the posts of Assistant Commissioner (D

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