SURESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by Suresh Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the notification issued by the State of Bihar dated 12-4-1973 (Annexure 4) appointing Sharvshri Arun Kumar Srivastava, Khurshid Alam, Nityanand Das and M.P. Srivastava (Respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively), besides others, to the post of Drugs Inspector. The petitioner in the said application has prayed for quashing the appointment of Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and for a direction to the State of Bihar (respondent No. 1) and the Director of Health Services, (respondent No. 2) to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Drugs Inspector.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points involved in this application it will be necessary to state the facts briefly. The petitioner is a bachelor of pharmacy from Benaras Hindu University in Uttar Pradesh. The Government of Bihar in the Health Department through the Bihar Public Service Commission advertised the vacancy for the 12 posts of Inspector of Drugs in Class II Gazetted rank, which was published in the Bihar Gazette dated 28-4-1971. As laid down in the advertisement the post carries the pay scale of Rs. 300 to Rs. 750. Out of the 12 vacancies two posts were reserved, one each Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. A copy of the said advertisement is marked Annexure '1' to this application. The petitioner in pursuance of the said advertisement applied for the post of Drugs Inspector. The requisite qualification for appointment to the said post is laid down in Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In consonance with Rule 49 of the Rules the advertisement dated 28-4-1971 (Annexure 1) also required the same qualification. The Bihar Public Service Commission (Respondent No. 3) on 4th and 7th April, 1972, interviewed about 20 candidates, including the petitioner, who turned up for interview. No candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community applied for the post, as stated by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the application. In paragraph 10 thereof the petitioner has stated that out of total candidates interviewed by respondent No. 3, only 11 candidates were holding degree of bachelor of pharmacy and the rest, bachelor of science. Respondents Nos. 4 to 7, who were appointed as Drugs Inspectors, were only science graduates and according to the petitioner, they did not possess the requisite qualifications required under Rule 49 of the Rules and as mentioned in the advertisement in question.

(3.) On behalf of respondent No. 3, a counter-affidavit has been filed on 6-7-1973 wherein, inter alia, it is stated that respondents 4 to 7 were in possession of the requisite qualifications for the post of Drugs Inspector and they were eligible for the post as found by the technical expert. Dr. J.K.P. Sinha. Deputy Director of Health Services, who was present at the time of interviews of the candidates. The Commission on the opinion of the expert was satisfied that respondents 4 to 7 had requisite qualifications and, therefore, had recommended to the State Government to be appointed as Drugs Inspector. It was further stated in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was also interviewed but was not found suitable for appointment to the post.