# MAHESHWAR PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & ANR v. SURESH SINGH AND ORS - **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 769 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1976-03-22 - **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, V. R. Krishna Iyer - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maheshwar-prasad-srivastava-anr-v-suresh-singh-and-ors-6827 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote 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-Meaning 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 successful 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 candidate applying for the post of a Drugs Inspector. It could not have been inten· ciencc may be appointed as an ex officio Inspector. E F G H A B c D E F G H 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 3 S.C.R. Appellants do not fall within the class described in clause (a) above but respondent 1 who is a Pharmacy Graduate does. The fact that respondent 1 is qualified to hold the post of a Drugs Inspector is undisputed and his application was rejected by the Public Service Commission not on the ground that he did not hold the necessary qualification for the post but on the ground that he was unsuitable for being appointed to the post. The appellants being Science graduates fall within clause (c) of Rule 49 and there can be no doubt that in addition to being Science graduates of a recognised University, they have to possess at least "one year's post-graduate training" in a laboratory under the authorities mentioned in clause ( c). It is not disputed that the appellants and worked for a fairly large number of years in laboratories under one or the other authorities mentioned in clause ( c), but the question for decision is whether they had received any "training" and if so, the training which they had received was "post-graduate training" within the meaning of clause ( c). The contention of respondent 1 which found favour with the High Court is that "post-graduate training" means systematic training in a post-graduate institution and since the appellants had not received such training through any post-graduate institution, they were not qualified to hold the particular post. The High Court, in our opinion, erred in accepting this contention. 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 post of a Drugs Inspector the person concerned must have received training under any 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 educatoinal qualification is in a better position to imbibe the training which he receives. Thus, the expression ''post-graduate training ought to be received and not to limit the elgibility to those who have received training after enrolment in an institution imparting post-graduate training. Clause ( c) specifies that the training has to he received in a laboratory under a Government Analyst or a Chemical Examiner amongst others. IL is difficult to conceive in the present educational set-up that a student who has enrolled himself in a post-graduate institution would receive training in a laboratory under a Government Analyst or a Chemical Examiner. A fair indication 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 candidate applying for the post of a Drugs Inspector. Post-graduate courses normally extend over a period exceeding one year after- graduation. It could not have been intended that it would be enough to make a candidate eligible for the post of a Drugs Inspector if, after graduation in medicine or science he enrolled himself for a post-graduate course and just took one year's training as part of that course. If enrolment in an institution imparting post-graduate instrnction .was the object of rule (c), the minimum qualification prescribed would at least have been the successful completion of the post-graduate course. \ ) i - .., M. P. SRIVASTAVA v. SURESH SINGH (Chandrachud, J.) 773 Rule 44 which prescribed qualifications for the post of GovernA ment Analyst throws useful light on the interpretation of rule 49. Rule 44 provides that only those persons can be appointed as Government Analysts who are Graduates in medicine or science or pharmacy or pharmaceutical chemistry and who have had "not less than three years' post-graduate experience" in the analysis of drugs in a laboratory under the control of designated authorities. If a post-graduate course extends over a period of 2 years only, as it normally does, it is B odd that in order that in order to qualify for the post of a Government Analyst a graduate in the specified discipline should be required to spend 3 years as a post-graduate student. Post-graduate experience stipulated in rule 44( a) and post-graduate training stipualted in rule 49 ( c) connote basically and for practical purposes an identical qualification. For both posts,, what is required in addition to other qualifications mentioned in fue respective rules is post-graduate expeC rience or training in the sense described above, namely, that the experience or training has to be gained or received after obtaining graduation. Maheshwar Prasad Srivastava the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1975, passed his B.Sc. examniation in 1960 and worked as a Demonstrator in the Pharmacy School, Patna under the Health Department, Government of Bihar from October, 1961 to December, D 1966. He was appointed as a Senior Scientific Assistant in the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory on December 23, 1966 where he worked under Dr. Sheo Bihari Lal, who was the Government Analyst in charge of the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory. It appears that the Government of Bihar through the Health Department used to send science graduates for training under the Government Analyst. The certificate issued by Dr. S. B. Lal shows that Srivastava worked under him E and had been "trained" for more than three years in the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory. A letter written by Dr. Lal to the Deputy Director of the Health Services, Bihar, on December 22, 1970 shows that during his absence on leave, Srivastava was to hold charge of the Bihar Drugs Control Laboratory. These facts make it impossible to accept the contention that the appellant had not received any sysetmatic training. In the ultimate analysis, the usefulness of any F training depends as mnch on the ability and willingness of the student or trainee as on the academic specifications of the training itself. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 603 of 1975 had worked as Demonstrators in Pharmacy School, Patna for a large number of years and in regard to them also it is difficult to accept the contention that the training which, they had received was not systematic. Dr. J. K. P. Sinha who was then ihe Deputy Director of Health Services, Bihar G and who assisted the Public Service Commission as a Technical Expert when the interviews for the particular posts were held, obviously took the view that the appellants who were science graduates satisfied the further test of post-graduate training for not less than one year. In matters involving consideration of questions regarding adeqnacy or sufficiency of "training", the Public Service Commission, having the benefit of expert opinion, is better situated to judge whether the partiH cnlar candidate is qualified for a particular post and courts should hesitated to interfere with the direction of the appointing authority, so long as it is exercised bona fide. 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 3 S.C.R. A Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1975 contended that resopndent No. 1 had no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the appellant since he himself, as ,disclosed \ by the affidavit filed on behalf of the Public Service Commission in the High Court, was rejected on the ground that he "was not found suitable for appointment to the post" of Drugs Inspector. In view of our conclusion that the appellants were duly qualified for the post, B it is unnecessary to go into this question. c For these reasons we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and hold that the appointments of the appellants as Drugs Inspectors were lawful and valid. The State of Bihar will pay the costs of these appeals to the appellants. SR Appeal allowed