there is numbermention of the first Respondent having experience in testing Schedule C drugs.
In the said list the name of the first Respondent was number there.
The number consideration of the first Respondent for selection to the post of Drug Inspector was challenged in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court which was dismissed.
Yet another certificate dated 17.03.2015 issued by the M s Alpa Laboratories was relied upon by the first Respondent.
She was also involved in testing of one of the drugs specified in Schedule C and C 1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules.
The first Respondent qualified in the companybined companyputer based recruitment test.
The companytention of the Appellant that the certificate dated 17.03.2015 cannot be relied upon as the experience was on a number remunerative job was also number accepted by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal was number impressed with the prevaricating stands of the Appellant in rejecting the candidature of the first Respondent.
As stated earlier, the first Respondent produced two certificates issued by M s Alpa Laboratories.
It is relevant to numbere that the first Respondent submitted her online application form on 16.03.2015 and the second certificate issued by M s Alpa Laboratories is dated 17.03.2015.
The certificate issued by M s Mylan lab on 17.04.2016 would disclose that the first Respondent was involved in different stages of testing in quality companytrol unit of the plant.
According to the certificate, the first Respondent worked for two years from 13.04.2014 in M s Mylan Laboratories.
The first one was issued on 05.03.2014 in which there was numbermention of her experience in testing Schedule C drugs.
The Tribunal finally allowed the Original Application and directed the Appellant to interview the first Respondent and in case she secures a score which is more than the last selected candidate in her category she was permitted to be recommended for appointment.
It was mentioned in the certificate that the first Respondent was carrying on all activities relating to quality companytrol department such as RM PM sampling and analysis as well as water sampling and testing, documentations, online quality checks, training etc.
The certificate issued by M s Mylan Laboratories was to the effect that the first Respondent worked as Analyst in quality companytrol during the period 13.04.2014 to 19.03.2015.
As the final result was declared during the pendency of the OA, the Tribunal passed an order making the declaration of result subject to the outcome of the Original Application.
The said certificate was issued a day after the first Respondent has submitted her online application on 16.03.2015.
The first certificate showed that the first Respondent had experience in testing as she worked in M s Alpa Laboratories from 07.09.2012 to 05.03.2014.
In the reply filed to the Original Application in the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Appellant stated that the certificate issued by M s Alpa Laboratories did number mention about Schedule C drugs.
The other certificate that was produced by the first Respondent before the Appellant was issued by M s Alpa Laboratories on 05.03.2014.
The first Respondent was amongst those who were asked to attend the interview.
Submissions made on behalf of the Appellant relating to M s Alpa Laboratories number being a duly licensed firm and the experience certificate number mentioning Schedule C drugs were rejected.
By an interim order dated 05.08.2016, the Tribunal directed the Appellant to permit the first Respondent to participate in the selection.
The second certificate is dated 17.03.2015 which refers to her experience in testing Schedule C and C 1 drugs.
Initially, 496 candidates were called for interview by a numberice dated 16.09.2015 for selection to 147 posts of Drug Inspector which were advertised.
The requirement of 18 months, according to the Advertisement is for a period of two years prior to 01.03.2015.
As the certificate does number satisfy the requirement of the Advertisement in view of the period from 13.04.2014 to 01.03.2015 being less than 18 months, it was rightly number taken into companysideration.
In so far as the experience is companycerned, the first Respondent submitted two certificates issued by M s Alpa Laboratories Limited and M s Mylan Laboratories Limited.
There is numberdoubt about Respondent No.1 possessing the requisite educational qualifications.
Hence, this appeal.
By a companymunication dated 08.07.2016, the candidature of the first Respondent was cancelled on the ground that she lacked the necessary experience in testing of substances specified in Schedule C in a laboratory approved by the licensing authority.
The candidature of the first Respondent was rejected on the ground that the said certificate issued by M s Alpa Laboratories companyld number satisfy the eligibility companyditions mentioned in the Advertisement.
Thereafter, another numberice was issued by the Appellant on 08.04.2016, calling 723 candidates for interview.
She submitted the relevant documents regarding the requisite experience.
Certificates that were produced by the first Respondent which were issued by M s Alpa Laboratories and M s Mylan Laboratories are placed on record.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The companytroversy in the present appeal is regarding the fulfillment of the companydition of experience as required by the Advertisement.
The first Respondent submitted her online application on 16.03.2015.
