Summary
Research experience in drug synthesis and testing could not substitute for the advertised essential practical experience in manufacture-related testing for Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspector appointments. The preference for research experience operated only after basic eligibility was met. Courts could not rewrite clear recruitment conditions or decide qualification equivalence for the employer. Prior expert scrutiny and an interview invitation did not make an ineligible candidate eligible.
Issues
- Whether research-and-development testing experience satisfied the advertised essential experience.
- Whether the preference clause conferred eligibility independently of essential qualifications.
- Whether prior scrutiny and admission to interview estopped the employer from finding a candidate ineligible.
Held
- Prescription of essential and desirable qualifications belongs to the employer. Courts cannot rewrite clear advertisements or substitute their judgment on equivalence; ambiguity or conflict with law requires appropriate orders and reconsideration by the appointing authority. (¶ 10)
- The requisite post-qualification experience concerned manufacture or testing linked to manufacture for sale or distribution. Research-and-development testing before a product was released for manufacture was not equivalent for these advertisements. (¶¶ 7–9, 12–13)
- Preference for postgraduate qualifications or research experience operated in addition to essential eligibility. Research experience alone conferred neither eligibility nor a preferential right to appointment. (¶¶ 12, 14–15)
- An expert committee’s document scrutiny and invitation to interview created no estoppel against clear advertised requirements. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs. High Court orders dated 4 May 2017 and 17 July 2017 set aside; its interpretation of eligibility for Assistant Commissioner (Drugs) and Drug Inspector posts rejected.