IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.S. DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 9696 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SHREESHAIL TUMBAGI S/O AMARESH TIMBAGI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT H.NO. 104/1, 3RD FLOOR NAVAMI SHANKAR APARTMENT 5 TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD 2 ND STAGE, GRUHALAKSHMI LAYOUT NEAR KAMALA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 079. …PETITIONER

(BY SHRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K. SATISH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

• 1. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY UDYOGA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
• 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

[AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 11.06.2021] …RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. REUBEN JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M.N. PAWAN KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R1; SHRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/05/2021 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.5636/2020 (ANNEXURE-A), SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/05/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.5636/2020 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION NO.5636/2020 AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.11.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

This writ petition by the unsuccessful applicant before the KSAT¹ , is directed against order dated 25.05.2021 in Application No.5636/2020.

2. Heard Shri. M.S. Bhagawat, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Shri. Reuben Jacob, learned Senior Advocate for the KPSC and Shri. Vikas Rojipura, AGA for the State.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status in the Tribunal.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are, applicant is a graduate in Pharmacy. He worked as a technical staff in Mylan Laboratories for 18 months and 20 days. Subsequently, he worked as an Executive at Karnataka Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals Limited.

¹Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

5. The KPSC² invited applications for the post of Drug Inspectors. The qualification prescribed is:

"1. Must be holder of B.Pharma degree in pharmacy.

2. Must have put in a service of not less than eighteen months of experience in the manufacturing and or testing of schedule C and / or C1 drugs included in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945."

3. The applicant cleared the written examination and got his documents verified. His name was published in the list of candidates eligible to attend the interview. However, the interview was postponed as some more information with regard to experience of the candidates was required. Another list of selected candidates was published, wherein applicant's name was not found. Aggrieved, applicant approached the KSAT and his application has been rejected. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Shri. Bhagawat praying to allow this writ petition, submitted that:

² Karnataka Public Service Commission

• the applicant possesses necessary qualifications for the post;
• applicant has worked in Mylan Laboratories Limited from 27.04.2016 to 16.11.2017 and at Karnataka Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals Limited from 20.11.2017 to 22.04.2018. Thus, he has experience of 24 months which is more than sufficient;
• the period worked as a trainee must be counted as experience.

8. Shri. Jacob, opposing the Writ Petition, contended that the applicant does not have requisite experience. The training period cannot be counted as experience. The certificate produced by the applicant is of research and development and it does not fulfill the requirements under Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

9. Learned AGA for the State also argued in support of the stand taken by the KPSC.

10. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.

11. Undisputed facts of the case are, applicant was not called for interview on the premise that he does not possess requisite experience. Shri. Bhagawat's argument is, applicant has worked in Mylan Laboratories Limited from 27.04.2016 to 16.11.2017 and at Karnataka Antibiotics Pharmaceuticals Limited from 20.11.2017 to 22.04.2018. Thus, he has 24 months of experience and eligible for the post applied.

12. Shri. Jacob's contention is that experience as a trainee cannot be considered.

13. Annexure A15 is letter of appointment which clearly shows that the applicant was appointed as a 'trainee' from 27.04.2016. As per Annexure A16, applicant has completed his training period and he was appointed as Senior Associate at Grade 30 from 27.04.2017.

14. In our view, Shri. Jacob is right in his submission that applicant was appointed only on 27.04.2017 and prior to that date, he was only a 'trainee'. One of the requirement for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector as per the Notification extracted in para 5 above is that the candidate must have put in service of not less than 18 months in the manufacturing and testing of C and/or C1 drugs included in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Notification does not include training period as service.

15. Shri. Bhagawat also urged that the KSAT in its earlier decision in Applications No. 5773-5786/2020 has held that experience gained as trainee shall be counted. We have perused the said Order (Annexure –G). In that case, the experience certificates of the applicants therein disclose that they were actually assigned regular work³ . Whereas, in the instant case, no such material is produced to show the nature of work carried out by the applicant during the training period. Therefore, Shri. Bhagawat's contention that

³ See para 111 of Annexure-H

the KSAT has not followed its earlier decision does not merit consideration.

16. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Resultantly, this Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- JUDGE

SPS