IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 67 of 2010 Nishant Tyagi ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …Respondents. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The respondent advertised seven posts of Drug Inspector on 10.4.2009. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid advertisement. The candidature of the petitioner was, however, rejected on account of the fact, that he does not possess the qualifications stipulated in the advertisement. The rejection order dated 30.3.2010 (Annexure – 3) has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant writ petition. 2. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the qualifications, depicted in the advertisement, are contrary to the qualifications prescribed under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Insofar as Rule 49 is concerned, it is not a matter of dispute that the same stipulates the qualifications for appointment to the post of a Drug Inspector as “…a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law…”. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in sum and substance, is that the advertisement prescribes a graduate degree, whereas Rule 49 requires only a degree qualification, and 2 as such, the advertisement is contrary to the mandatory provision contained in Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We, however, find no merit therein. The stipulation contained in Rule 49 mandates the possession of a degree qualification acquired from a University established in India by law. It is, therefore, apparent that the prescribed qualification is nothing other than a graduate degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialisation in Clinical Pharmacy or Microbiology. This is exactly the stipulation contained in the advertisement dated 10.4.2009. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the qualifications stipulated in the advertisement are not contrary to or in derogation of the provision of Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the qualification stipulated either in the advertisement or in Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 5. In view of the above, the respondents were well within their right to reject the candidature of the petitioner and rejection of the candidature of the petitioner through the impugned order i.e. 30.3.2010 is, therefore, fully justified. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 26.4.2010 Rathour