KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOGA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001 Vs. SRI. N. GOVINDARAJU, S/O. NAGARAJU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition No. 30317/2010 and Writ Petition No. 30423/10 are filed by the Karnataka Public Service Commission challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore on Applications No. 249 -254/10 connected with Application Nos. 447 and 486/10. Writ Petition No. 36819/10 Is filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the very same order passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Writ Petition No. 29097 -29121/10 and Writ Petition No. 29310 -29359/10 are preferred by certain Individuals who were not parties In the aforesaid applications. These petitions are filed by the persons who are not parties before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal In the aforesaid petitions except one of the Petitioner by name Mohd. Jowher Khalld who was Respondent -3 In application No. 486/10 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) WE have heard Sri. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the individual Writ Petitioners, Sri. NanJunda Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the Karnataka Public Service Commission and Smt. Sheeia Krishna, learned AGA and Sri. Ranganath Jols who Is appearing for the applicants before the Tribunal who are Respondents In these Wht Petitions.

(3.) THE KPSC filed a detailed counter. According to the KPSC as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations and Selection) (General) Rules 2006, the KPSC has selected the candidates strictly in accordance with 2006 Rules in respect of the post In Group A, B, C and D who are to be filled by direct recruitment for which no special or general rules have been made prescribing the method for such direct recruitment. According to the KPSC method of selection has been made in Rule -5 and how such candidates has to be selected is found In Rule -6. Following Rules -5 and 6, final selection of candidates has been announced as per Rule 8. The contention of the applicants that Rule 2006 have no application and that the experience of 3 years has to be considered first while preparing the eligible candidates ignoring the merit of the candidates does not stand to reason. Further, according to them, In the notification of 7th April 1986, the qualification for recruitment of Drugs Inspectors is, he must be a holder of degree in Pharmacy and must have put in 3 years of experience in the manufacturing of Schedule C and C1 drugs Included In the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945. But of a person without experience is not available then only a person with a degree in Pharmacy was required to be considered. But In 2002, Rules were amended and as per the said Rules, method of recruitment to the post of Drugs Inspector shall be: 1) Must be a holder of decree In Pharmacy 2) Preference shall be given to persons who have put in service of not less than 3 years of experience In the manufacturing of schedule C or C1 drugs Included in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945.