High Court quashes process of drug inspectors' appointment
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, September 10
A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the State of Haryana could not have acted beyond the statutory provisions contained in a Central Act and the rules framed under it by making experience an essential qualification for appointment of drug inspectors.
The three-Judge Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Moudgil also quashed the process initiated for the selection and appointment of drug inspectors or drug control officers pursuant to an advertisement issued in September 2015 and a corrigendum dated June 4, 2019.
Age relaxation desirable
The selections are being quashed in 2022. In the meantime, many qualified candidates, eligible at the relevant time, may have become overage…official respondents are expected to give an appropriate relaxation in upper age to such candidates. —Justice Monga
The Bench also made it clear that the qualification prescribed under the advertisement, making experience essential for appointment could not sustain. Justice Monga asserted the impugned advertisement was issued on September 7, 2015, and the selection was finalised in 2020. But the appointments remained stayed by virtue of interim orders passed by the HC.
“The advertisement and the selections are being quashed now in 2022. In the meantime, many qualified candidates, eligible at the relevant time, would/may have become overage. In fairness to them, the official respondents are expected to give an appropriate relaxation of upper age limit in the fresh selection to such candidates,” Justice Monga added.
The question for consideration before the Bench was whether the state could make experience an essential qualification by invoking proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on “recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a state”.
The Bench observed experience was not an essential qualification under the 1945 rules framed by the Centre in the exercise of powers conferred under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940.
Justice Masih and Justice Moudgil asserted the power to frame rules was only available to the Centre. Since there was an appropriate Act with rules framed under it, the power available to the state under Article 309 was not exercisable by it.
The judges added the state legislature could alter, repeal or amend the 1940 Act. In case the same was repugnant or inconsistent to the central Act, the President’s assent was required after it has been reserved for consideration. On receipt of such assent, the provision passed by the state legislature would prevail.
“The route was not followed by the state. Instead of amending the 1940 Act, it proceeded to frame its own set of rules exercising powers under proviso to Article 309 under a misconception and in violation of the constitutional provisions,” the Judges said. Justice Monga concurred with the verdict’s operative part. But added his own independent reasons in support of it.
