Civil Appeals Nos 602 and 603 of 1975
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Orderdecree dated the 30 1 1975 of the Patna High Court in C W J C No 502 of 1973
V section Desai and section N Prasad for Appellants in CA 60275
Bishan Narain section N Misra section section Jauhar and A K Sinha for Appellants in C A 60375
section C Misra and U section Prasad for respondent No 1 In both appeals
B P Singh and U P Singh for Respondent No 2 In C A 603 and Respondents 2 and 3 In C A 602
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD J
These appeals by special leave arise out of a judgment of the Patna High Court in a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the appointment of the appellants as Drugs Inspectors
Civil Appeal No 602 of 1975 is filed by original respondent 7 while Civil Appeal 603 of 1975 is filed by original respondents 4 to 6 to the Writ Petition
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the appointments of the appellants on the ground that they did not have the requisite qualification for appointment as Drugs Inspectors
The Government of Bihar in its Health Department advertised through the Bihar Public Service Commission 12 vacancies of Inspectors of Drugs
Twenty candidates applied for the posts out of whom 13 including respondent 1 were Pharmacy Graduates while 7 including the appellants were Science Graduates
The Public Service Commission held interviews in April 1972 and selected the appellants amongst others
Respondent 1 was rejected on the ground that he was not suitable for the post
The appointments of the appellants were challenged by respondent 1 on the sole ground that they were not qualified to be appointed as Drugs Inspectors
Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 framed by the Government of India in the Ministry of Health prescribes qualifications for the post of a Drugs Inspector
It reads as follows 49
Qualifications of Inspectors
A person who is 771 appointed an Inspector under the Act shall be a person who a has a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Chemistry or a post graduate degree in Chemistry with Pharmaceutics as a special subject of a University recognised for this purpose by the appointing authority or the associateship Diploma of the Institution of Chemists India obtained by passing the examination with Analysis of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals  as one of the subjects or aa holds the Pharmaceutical Chemists Diploma granted by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain or b x x x c is a graduate in medicine or science of a University recognised for this purpose by the appointing authority and has at least one year s post graduate training in a laboratory under i a Government Analyst appointed under the Act or ii a Chemical Examiner or iii a Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain Branch E or iv the head of an institution specially approved for the purpose by the appointing authority Provided that only those inspectors who have not less than three years  experience in the manufacture and testing of substances specified in Schedule in a laboratory approved for this purpose by the licensing authority shall be authorised to inspect the manufacture of items mentioned in Schedule C Provided further that only Inspectors who are graduates in veterinary science or medicine or general science or pharmacy and have had not less than three years  experience in the manufacture or testing of biological products shall be authorised to inspect the manufacture of veterinary biological products Provided further that for a period of four years from the date on which Chapter IV of the Act takes effect in the States persons whose qualifications training and experience are regarded by the appointing authority as affording subject to such further training if any as may be considered necessary a reasonable guarantee of adequate knowledge and competence may be appointed as Inspectors and authorised under the preceding proviso Provided further that for the purposes of inspection of shops in any specified area any officer of the medical or Public Health Department who is a registered medical practitioner or a graduate in science may be appointed as an ex officio Inspector
772 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 49c 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 educational 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 eligibility to those who have received training after enrolment in an institution imparting post graduate training
Clause c 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 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 49c 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 instruction was the object of rule c the minimum qualification prescribed would at least have been the successful completion of the post graduate course
773 Rule 44 which prescribed qualifications for the post of Government 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 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 44a and post graduate training stipulated in rule 49c connote basically and for practical purposes an identical qualification
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 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 BSc examination in 1960 and worked as a Demonstrator in the Pharmacy School Patna under the Health Department Government of Bihar from October 1961 to December 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 section B Lal shows that Srivastava worked under him 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 systematic training
In the ultimate analysis the usefulness of any training depends as much 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 the Deputy Director of Health Services Bihar 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 adequacy or sufficiency of training the Public Service Commission having the benefit of expert opinion is better situated to judge whether the Particular 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 Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 602 of 1975 contended that respondent 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 it is unnecessary to go into this question
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


Summary:
The appellants all science graduates with laboratory training were the successful candidates for twelve vacancies of Drug Inspectors advertised by the Bihar Public Service Commission
Respondent No 1 Pharmacy graduate whose application was rejected on the ground of his unsuitability for being appointed to the post challenged the selection by a writ on the ground that the appellants were unqualified under Rule 49c of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 in as much as they did not have a systematic training in a post graduate institution
The High Court accepted the contention and set aside the selection
On appeal by special leave he Court  HELD 1 The expression post graduate training is used in Rule 49c 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
Pregraduation 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 which 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 enrolment 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 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 49c 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 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 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 44a throws useful light on the interpretation of Rule 49
Post graduate experience stipulated in Rule 44a 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 770 In matters involving considerations of questions regarding adequacy or sufficiency of training the Public Service Commission having the benefit of expert opinion is better situated to judge whether the particular candidate is qualified for a particular post and courts should hesitate to interfere with the discretion of the appointing authority so long as it is exercised bona fide
773 G H Their Lordships considered that in view of the conclusion that the appellants were duly qualified it was unnecessary to go into the question of Locus Standi of respondent No 1 a rejected candidate on the ground of his unsuitability to file the writ petition