Supreme Court of India
DR. M.C. BINDALversusR.C. SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 286
- Decided
- 19 September 1988
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- A P SEN
Holding
A candidate must fulfil all prescribed qualifications, and the Public Service Commission may lawfully withdraw its recommendation if the candidate lacks the requisite experience.
Summary
The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission advertised for the post of Food & Drug Controller, requiring a medical degree and five years of experience in drug standardisation or testing. Dr. M.C. Bindal applied, claiming seven years of experience, and was provisionally recommended pending verification of the experience requirement. After the State appointed him, the Commission verified his experience and found it to be only about three years and four months, consequently withdrawing and cancelling its recommendation. Dr. Bindal challenged this withdrawal, arguing that the State's appointment was valid and that the Commission's consultative role under Article 320 was merely advisory. The Supreme Court held that a candidate must satisfy all stipulated qualifications, that the Commission is duty‑bound under Article 320(3)(a) and (b) to verify such qualifications, and that its decision to withdraw the recommendation was lawful. The Court also clarified that consultation with the PSC is directory, not mandatory, and that once the PSC withdraws a candidature, the appointment cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal of S.K. Majumdar (C.A. 3926) and dismissed the other appeals and writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Public Service Commission can withdraw and cancel its recommendation when a candidate lacks the requisite experience.
- Whether a provisional appointment by the State is valid absent fulfillment of the qualifications specified in the advertisement.
- Whether the duty to consult the State Public Service Commission under Article 320 is mandatory or directory.
- Whether the candidate must satisfy both educational and experience qualifications to be appointed.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 320
Subjects
Public Service CommissionAppointmentQualification requirementExperience requirementArticle 320Provisional appointmentWithdrawal of recommendationDirectory consultation
Judgment
DR. M.C. BINDAL
A
v.
R.C. :SINGH & ORS.
SEP1EMBER 19,. 1988
B [A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950: Article 320-PubUc Service
Commission-Duty of-,--Recommend only candidates fulfilling all
requisite qualifications-On enquiry candidate not found to have rele-
vant and required experience-Commission-Right ta-Withdrawal of
candidature and cancellation of recommendation.
c
The U.P. Public Service Commission made an advertisement in
various newspapers inviting applications for the post of Food & Drug
Controller, U.P. The requisite qualification for the said post were
specified in the advertisement as: (I) a degree from any recognised
D . University in Medicine/Science/Pharmaceutical Chemistry, and (2)
experience of five years in Drug Standardization and problems relating
to control of Drug standards or Drug manufacture or Drug testing in a •
renowned institution.
Pursuant to the said advertisement Dr. M.C. Bindal, Dr. S.K.
E Majumdar, the appellants in the two appeals C.A. No. 3797/84 and
C.A. No. 3926/84 respectively, and Ram Chander Singh, the respon-
dent in the first appeal along with others filed applications. The Com-
mission after holding interview recommended the appointment of (a) in
the main list-R.C. Singh and (b) in the reserved list-Dr. M.C. Bindal
(Provisional) and made it clear that the word 'Provisional' denoted that
F the recommendation was subject to the candidate meeting the necessary
qualification-experience of five years. ·
The State of Uttar Pradesh intimated the Commission that the
candidature of R.C. Singh did not appear to be suitable in view of the
vigilance enquiry against him, and that Dr; Rindal had the requisite
G experience of five years. In its reply the Commission intimated that the
right to appoint or not to appoint a candidate vested with the. State of
U.P. and it was for th~State Government to take a decision accord-
ingly. On receipt of this letter, the State Government appointed Dr.
1\1.C. Rindal as Food & Drug Controller. i
H Two writ petitions were filed in the High Court, one by R.C.
-·· .
36
M.C. BINDAL v. R.C. SINGH 37
Singh and another by S.K. l\lajumdar challenging the appointment of
Dr. 1\1.C. Bindal on the ground that he had not the requisite experience. A
The High Court by a common judgment allowed in part the writ peti-
tions, and held that though Dr. Rindal is not per se unsuitable or dis-
qualified for the post, his appointment was to b.e treated. as only provi-
sional and subject to the final decision of the State Government. •
B
Dr. Bind.al appealed to this Court. In· the meantime the Service
Commission directed one of its officers to verify whether Dr. Rindal
fulfilled the qualifications relating to practical experience of 5 years in
Drug Standardization or Drug testing in a renowned institution • .The
Deputy Secretary after enquiry sent a report that the total period of
experience of Dr. Bindal. on the date of submission of his application C
was only 3 years 4 months and 9 days whereas the essential qualification
required was experience should be for 5 years. The Commission there-
after took the decision: 'that the Commission withdraws and cancels the
provisional recommendation and the candidature because Dr. Rindal
did not possess the requisite qualifications'.
D
In the appeal and the writ petition it was contended on behalf of
Dr. Rindal that the Service Commission was wrong and patently in
error in withdrawing the candidature of the appellant and in cancelling
its recommendation. ·
Allowing C.A. No. 3926 of 1986 filed by Dr. l\lajumdar, and E
dismissing C.A. No. 3797 of 1984, W.P. No. 756 of 1986 filed by Dr;
Bindal and C.A. No. 3798of1984 filed by the State of U.P., the Court,
HELD: 1. A candidate in order to be considered for appointment
for the post must have. to comply with the requisite qualification,
namely the educational qualification as well as experience. If any of F
these essential qualifications is lacking then the candidate cannot claim
to be appointed in the said post. [42E]
2. Under Article 320(3)(a) and (b), it is the duty of the Public
Service Commission to consider and to get itself satisfied as to which of
the candidates has fulfilled the requisite qualifications specified in the G
advertisement. [42G] ·
3. The Commission in the instant case has duly got verified the
certificates of Dr. Rindal in regard to his· experience of five years in
drug testing by a Deputy Secretary of the Commission, and after con-
sidering his report as well as the certificates came to the conclusion that H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
the appellant though fulfilled educational qualification, lacked in the
A
requisite experience of five years in drug testing. The Commission
therefore, revised its earlier decision and also canceiled the recommen-
dation earlier given in favour of the appellant. The decision of the
Public Service Commission, cannot be faulted. [42H; 43A-BJ
B 4. It is the constitutional requirement envisaged in Article 320
that the Commission will have to perform the duty of recommending the
candidate fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for the post to the
GovPrnment for being considered for appointment to the post con-
cerned. [43B-C]
CIVIL APPBLLATE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil
c Appeal Nos. 3797-3798 of 84 and 3926 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22. 12.1983 of the Allaha-
bad High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2451and2155 of 1983.
D Anil Dev Singh, G.L.Sanghi, M.K. Ramamurthi, Mrs. S.
Dikshit, S.K. Mehta, M.K. Dua, Aman Vachhar and S.C. Birla for
the Appellants/Petitioners.
S.N. Kacker and R.B. Mehrotra for the Respondents.
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, J. We allowed the Civil Appeal No. 3926 of 1986 and
dismissed Civil Appeal No. 3797 of 1984 and writ petition No. 756 of
1986 filed by Dr. M.C. Bindal and Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 1984 filed
by the State of Uttar Pradesh by our order dated December 19, 1986
F and we indicated therein tha.t the reasons for the above order would be
given later on. Accordingly, we are giving the reasoned judgment
herein below.
The U .P. Public Service Commission made an advertisement in
various newspapers on September 13, 1981 inviting applications for
G the post of Food & Drug Controller, U.P. The qualifications for thb
post stated in the said advertisement are set out hereunder:
"Necessary qualifications:
( 1) A degree from any recognised University in Medicine
H Science/Pharmaceutical Chemistry.
M.C. BINDAL v. R:C. SINGH {RAY, J.J 39
;,.
(2) Experience of 5 years in Drug Standardization and
A
problems relating to controlling of Drug standards or drug
manufacturing or drug testing in a renowned institution.
............... "
Pursuant to the said advertisement Dr. M.C. Bindal, Dr. S.K. B
Majumdar, Shri Ram Chander Singh and others filed applications.
The appellant Dr. Bindal stated in his application that he has seven
years' experience as per the advertisement. He also stated that he had
three and a half years' specific experience i.e. experience in the field of
drug testing and four years other experience namely experience in the
field of teaching Pharma analysis including testing of transfusion fluids
in the hospitals, pharmacy manufacturing units attached to LLRM c
Medical College, Meerut. It has also been stated that in the four years
of teaching experience in addition to his teaching responsibility he also
conducted the laboratories in which drug testing was carried out. Of
the applicants, Dr. S.K. Majumdar was not called for interview.
D
The U.P. Public Service Commission after holding interview of
the candidates recommended the following candidates for appoint-
ment to the post of Food & Drug Controller, U.P.:
(a) In the main list ... Shri R.C. Singh
(b) In the Reserve List ... Dr. M.C. Bindal (Prov.) E
The Commission also recommended for relaxation of age of Shri
R.C. Singh. The Commission also made it clear that "the word 'Provi-
sional' denoted that the' recommendation was subject to the petitioner
meeting the necessary qualification-experience of 5 years-for the
appointment to the office of the Drug Controller."
F
On December 5, 1982, the State of Uttar Pradesh intimated the
Commission that the candidate Shri R.C. Singh did not appear to be
suitable in view of the fact that there had been a vigilance enquiry
against hin.. It was also pointed out in the said letter that the appoint-
ment of Shri R.C. Singh as Food & Drug Controller would not be iA
public interest. The State further pointed out that Dr. Bindal had the G
requisite expedence of 5 years and he had also excellent academic and
other qualifications.
In reply to the said letter sent by the Secretary, Medical a.nd
I Health, U.P. Government. the U.P. Public Service Commission by its
letter dated February 23, 1983 intimated to the State of U .P. that the H
A
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
right to appoint or not to appoint a candidate vested with the State of
. '
)
U.P. and it was for the State Government to take a decision accord-
ingly. On ·eceipt on this letter the State Government appointed Dr.
M.C. Bindal as Food & Drug Controller, U.P. by its letter dated April
6, 1983.
B Thereafter two writ petitions y,ere filed in the High Court at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; one by Shri R.C. Singh and another by
Dr. S.K. Majumdar challenging the appointment of Dr. M.C. Bindal
on the ground that he had not the requisite experience as required for
the said post of Food & Drug Controller, U .P. These writ petitions are
writ petition No. 2451 of 1983 and writ petition No. 2155 of 1983.
These were heard together and were allowed in part by a common
c judgment on December 22, 1983. The relevant portions of the findings
are set out herein:
"To sum up: (1) The order appointing Dr. Bindal to the post
finally was premature (2) Before final decisions taken in
D the matter, the State Government has to take a decision
on: (a) whether to allow or reject Shri R.C. Singh's re-
presentation against the censure entry based on vigilance
report and then to consider the question of his suitability
for appointment. (b) Whether to relax the age limit for Shri
R.C. Singh (c) If Shri R.C. Singh was not to be considered
E suitable, then to consider in consultation with the Public
Service Commission the question whether Dr. Bindal fulfil-
led the-requisite qualification relating to practical experi-
ence in accordance with law (d) If Dr. Bindal is found not
to fulfil the qualification, then to consider whether the
qualification relating to practical experience has to be
modified or not (e) As Dr. Bindal is not perse unsuitable or
disqualified for the post, he will continue to hold the post
provisionally till a decision is taken as above. The final
decision should however be taken at an early date, say
within a period of three months from today.
G Accordingly, the petitioners succeed in part. The
matter will have to be considered afresh by the State
Government in some respects as set out above in consulta-
tion with the Commission. Dr. Bindal's appointment can-
not, however, be held to be illegal because it is not in
violation of any statutory provision. Indeed, if an l.A.S.
H Officer could hold the post for such a long time, Dr. Bindal
being certainly better qualified can also hold the post.
M.0. BINDAL v. R.C. SINGH {RAY, J.I 41
__However, his appointment shall be treated as only provi-
sional and will be subject to the final decision of the State A
Government as indicated herein above.
The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed in part to
the extent indicated above. No order is made as to costs."
B
Aggrieved by the said judgment Dr. Bindal who was one of the
respondents in the said writ petitions filed a special leave petition
being SLP (C) No. 10330 of 1984 which was numbered as Civil Appeal
No. 3797 of 1984 after the grant of special leave. The State of Uttar
Pradesh also filed SLP (C) No. 9084/84 and this was numbered subse-
quently as Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 1984 after grant of special leave.
The U.P. Public Service Commission however,. in the meantime on c
March 15, 1984 directed one of its officers i.e. Deputy Secretary to
verify whether Dr. Bindal fulfilled the qualifications relating to practi-
cal experience in drugs standardization or drug manufacturing or drug
. testing in a renowned institution. The Deputy Secretary after enquiry
sent a "report to the U .P. Public Service Commission stating that the D
total period of experience of Dr. Bindal on the date of submission of
his application was only 3 years 4 months and 9 days whereas the
essential qualification required was qperience should be for 5 years
from any repute concern. The U.P. Public Service Commission took a
decision on April 17, 1984 to the effect "that the Commission with-
draws and cancels the provisional recommendation and the candidature E
because Shri Bindal does not possess the requisite qualifications" and
the same was sent to the Government on April 23, 1984. Dr. Bindal
moved a writ petition being writ petition No. 756 of 1986 against this
impugned order made by the Public Service Commission withdrawing
the candidature of Dr. Bindal and cancelling its recommendation of
the petitioner for the post of Food and Drug Controller, U.P. F
It is necessary to mention in this connection that on September
21, 1984 this Court while granting special leave made an order of stay
of operation of the High Court judgment pending hearing of the
appeal. But subsequently on March 18, 1986 after hearing the learned
counsels the interim order of stay was recalled in consideration of the G
fact that U .P. Public Service Commission had already cancelled the
candidature of the appellant and withdrawn the recommendation
made in his favour for the reason inter alia that he lacked in five years
experience in Drug testing. This Court also directed the State Govern-
; ment to appoint a membtf or me Indian Administrative Service to
function as the Food & Drug Controller, U.P. H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
It has been urged on behalf of the appellant, Dr. Bindal that the
A order of the Public Service Commission in cancelling the candidature
of the appellant and withdrawing the recommendation made in his
favour is wholly illegal and bad in as much as the Government has
considered the certificates produced by the appellant and found that
the appellant had the requisite experience of five years in Drug testing
B and as such he was 11ppointed by the Government as Food and Drug
Controller, U.P. The U.P. Public Service Commission was wrong and
patently in error in withdrawing the candidature of the appellant and
in cancelling its recommendation without properly considering the
opinion of the Government to the effect that the appellant had the
requisite experience of five years in drug testing. It has been further
contended in this connection that the Provision of Article 320 of the
c Constitution of India providing for consultation with the Union Public
Service Commission or providing for consultation with the State Public
Service Commission is not mandatory and as such the recommenda-
tion of the Commission was not binding on the State Government. It
has been submitted that the recommendation of the Commission is in
JD the nature of advisory function and it is for the State to take the
ultimate decision. Some decisions of this Court have been cited at the
bar on this score.
In the instant case, the advertisement for the post was made at
the instance of the U.P. Public Service Commission and the requisite
E.. qualification for the post had been specified in the advertisement. It is
therefore, essential that a candidate in order to be considered for
appointment for the said post must have to comply with the requisite
qualification namely the educational qualification as well as the experi-
ence in drug testing etc. for a period of five years. If any of these
essential qualifications is lacking then the candidate cannot claim to be
]11 appointed in the said post. Undoubtedly, it is the Public Service
Commission who has to receive the applications of the candidates and
has to scrutinise them and then to decide which of the applicants have
got the requisite qualifications and so be called fqr interview. It is the
duty of the Commission with the help of experts in the particular
subject to hold interview and to find out and select the candidates
having the requisite qualifications and experience fit to be recom-
0 mended to the Government for appointment to the said post of Food
& Drug Controller. Therefore, under Article 320(3)(a) and (b), it is
the duty of Public Service Commission to consider and to get itself
·satisfied as to which of the candidates has fulfilled the requisite qualifi-
cations specified in the advertisement. The Commission in this particu-
Jf lar case has duly got verified the certificate of the Dr. Bindal in regard
to his experience of five years in drng testing by a Deputy Secretary of
I
M.C. BINDAL v. R.C. SINGH [RAY, J.l 43
the Commission and after considering his report as well as the certifi- A
cates came to the conclusion that the appellant though fulfilled educa-
tional qualifications, lacked in the requisite experience of five years in
drug testing. The Commission, therefore, revised its earlier decision
and withdrew the candidature of the appellant and also cancelled its
recommendation earlier given in favour of the appellant. This decision
of the Public Service Commission, in our considered opinion cannot be B
faulted. It is the constitutional requirement envisaged in Article 320
that the Commission will have to perform the duty of recommending
the candidate fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for the post to
the Government for being considered for appointment to the post
concerned. It is, of course, a well settled legal position that the duty to
consult the Commission in the matter of appointment to civil posts by
the Government is not mandatory but directory and as such the c
absence of consultation with the State Public Service Commission does
not render any appointment made by the Government in Civil posts
invalid or illegal. It cannot also be contended that since the duty to
consult ihe Public Service Commission in the matter of making
appointments to Civil Services of the State is directory and not manda- D
tory, the appointment of Dr. Bindal as Food & Drug Controller, U.P.
by the Government of Uttar Pradesh cannot be questioned or
interfered in by the Court in as much as the candidature of the appel-
lant, Dr. Bindal for the post in question has already been withdrawn
by the Public Service Commission and as such the question of validity
or invalidity of the appointment of the appellant, Dr. Bindal to the E
said post "is no longer open to be considered by the Court.
In such circumstances tne only course open for the Government
is to re-advertise the post. If such advertisement is made the appellant,
Dr. Bindal will be free to apply for the same. It has been brought to
our notice by a subsequent affidavit sworn by Dr. S.K. Majumdar that F
the said post with a changed name as Drug Controller was advertised
and Dr. Bindal's name was recommended for the said post by the U .P.
Public Service Commission and the deponant was not called for
interview. We do not think it proper to take notice 9f the subsequent
fact and we refrain from expressing any opinion in this respect. It is
open to the parties to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. G -
For the reasons aforesaid the Civil Appeal No. 3926 of 1986 is
allowed and Civil Appeal No. 3797 of 1984, Writ Petition No. 756 of
1986 filed by Dr. M.C. Bindal and Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 1984 filed
(
by the State of Uttar Pradesh are dismissed with costs.
N.V.K.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Public Service Commission"Sign in to search