Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
G.S.SISTANI, ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
Union Public Service Commission – Appellant
Versus
Nidhi Pandey – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of recruitment for drug inspectors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on experience requirement for candidates. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. tribunal's interpretation of qualifications and experience. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning on qualifications as per rule 49. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. final conclusion dismissing the writ petitions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral)--The issues involved in these batch matters are common, whereby challenge is laid to order dated 22.03.2018 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (`Tribunal'). These petitions are therefore being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts noted in the case of "UPSC v. Nidhi Pandey & Another", W.P.(C) 2475/2019 arising out of O.A.2390/2016 are being noticed.
2. The petitioner/Union Public Service Commission (`UPSC') published Advertisement No.04/2015 in issue dated 28th February-6th March 2015 of Employment News, inviting online applications for recruitment to 147 posts of Drug Inspectors (Vacancy No. 15020403128) in the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Out of 147 posts
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
