Supreme Court Allows MPSC Appeals, Upholds Eligibility Criteria for Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors. Research Experience in R&D Laboratory Held Not Equivalent to Manufacturing Experience Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Civil appeals against High Court orders holding candidates with research experience in synthesis and testing of drugs eligible for appointment to posts of Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspectors.

Appellant MPSC sought setting aside of High Court orders and upholding of the Tribunal's decision that research experience is not equivalent to manufacturing experience.

The High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision and held that candidates with research experience in R&D laboratories were eligible, contrary to the plain terms of the advertisement.

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.820 of 2013 held that research experience could not be termed as experience for recruitment; High Court in W.P. No.6637 of 2014 and analogous cases reversed, holding such candidates eligible; High Court in W.P. No.7960 of 2016 followed the same.

Whether research experience in synthesis and testing of drugs in a research and development laboratory satisfies the essential qualification of 'experience in the manufacture or testing of drugs' under the advertisements. Whether the preference clause in the advertisement can be interpreted to confer eligibility on candidates possessing only research experience. Whether the participation of candidates in the selection process after scrutiny by a committee estops the employer from challenging their eligibility.

Appellant MPSC: Academic qualifications with practical experience in manufacturing and testing of drugs are essential; research experience is only a desirable qualification for preference; High Court erred in equating desirable with essential. Respondents: They are M. Pharma graduates with over three years research experience in R&D and testing; they were called after scrutiny by a committee; they are eligible; reliance on definition of 'manufacture' in Section 3(f) of the Act.

Essential qualifications for appointment are for the employer to decide; courts cannot rewrite advertisement terms. The plain language of the advertisement distinguishes between essential experience in manufacture or testing of drugs and desirable research experience. The preference clause only gives additional weightage, not eligibility. Estoppel cannot operate against clear terms of the advertisement. Testing in an R&D laboratory is not at par with testing in the manufacturing process as defined under Section 3(f) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. If the language of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the Court cannot sit in judgment over the same. The fact that an expert committee may have been constituted ... cannot operate as an estoppel against the clear terms of the advertisement. The experience of testing has to be correlated to the manufacturing process which naturally will be entirely different from the testing carried out in the research and development laboratory. The term 'preference' ... cannot be interpreted to mean that merely because a candidate may have had the requisite experience of testing in a research and development laboratory he/she possessed the essential eligibility.

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.820 of 2013 held that research experience is not equivalent to manufacturing experience. The High Court in W.P. No.6637 of 2014 and analogous cases reversed the Tribunal's decision. The High Court in W.P. No.7960 of 2016 followed the same reasoning. The MPSC appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave and heard the appeals together.

• Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Section 3(f)