By the Court.—On 11 February 2011, a Division Bench of this Court made a reference to the Full Bench of the following questions:

(1) Whether the experience required in the proviso to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 is only a bar of authorization to inspect the manufacture of substances, or is an essential qualification under Rule 49 for direct appointment as Drug Inspector under Rule 5 (4) of the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1995.

(2) Whether the Division Bench judgment in State of U.P. v. Zunab Ali and others, Special Appeal No. 804 of 2010, decided on 29th November, 2010, has been correctly decided.

2. This reference requires an interpretation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and of Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

3. For direct recruitment of Drug Inspectors under the U.P. State Drug Control Gazetted Officers’ Service Rules, 1995, the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement dated 10 October 2009 were a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law. On 9 July 2010, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission issued a corrigendum on the directions of the State Government and stipulated that as part of the essential qualifications required for the post, at least eighteen months’ experience of testing of at least one of the substances mentioned in Schedule C to the Rules or at least eighteen months’ experience in the manufacture of one of the substances specified in Schedule C or three years’ experience in the inspection of firms manufacturing any of the substances specified in Schedule C licensed for the manufacture of drugs. Following the publication of this corrigendum on 11 July 2010 in the newspapers, three writ petitions were filed to challenge it and to seek a mandamus that the applications submitted by the petitioners should not be rejected.

4. Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 provides for the qualifications of Inspectors:

“49. Qualifications of Inspectors.—A person who is appointed an Inspector under the Act shall be a person who has a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law:

Provided that only those Inspectors—

(i) who have not less than 18 months’ experience in the manufacture of at least one of the substances specified in Schedule C, or

(ii) who have not less than 18 months’ experience in testing of at least one of the substances in Schedule C in a laboratory approved for this purpose by the licensing authority, or

(iii) who have gained experience of not less than three years in the inspection of firm manufacturing any of the substances specified in Schedule C during the tenure of their services as Drugs Inspectors;

shall be authorized to inspect the manufacture of the substances mentioned in Schedule C:

Provided further that the requirement as to the academic qualification shall not apply to persons appointed as Inspectors on or before the 18th day of October, 1993.”

5. A learned Judge of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Tandon) while dealing with the interpretation of Rule 49 in Vinod Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and others, C.M.W.P. No. 8978 of 2010, held in a judgment dated 22 February 2010 that the essential educational qualifications for holding the post of an Inspector is a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law. In the view of the learned Judge, the first proviso to Rule 49 prescribes the experience for an Inspector to be authorized to inspect the manufacture of the substances mentioned in Schedule C. This, however, was held not to constitute an essential qualification for a person to be eligible for being appointed as an I