JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Amendment application filed today be taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Anand Prakash learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for U.P. Public Service Commission and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 3. Petitioner before this Court seeks quashing of the selection held qua the post of Drugs Inspector in pursuance of the advertisement dated 8/18th December, 2007 as well as for quashing of the select list dated 23rd December, 2009. 4. According to the petitioner, the essential qualification prescribed for selection and appointment on the post of Drug Inspector is a degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Science or Medicine with specialization in clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in India by law as well as not less than 18 months experience in the manufacture of at least one of substances specified in Schedule “C” or 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 not less than 3 years experience in the inspection of firms manufacturing any of the substance specified in Schedule ‘C’. He submits that under the original advertisement, the aforesaid qualifications were provided as mandatory qualifications, which the petitioner satisfies. Subsequently vide corrigendum issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission dated 17th October, 2008, the requirement of experience was done away with and this has resulted in selection of the candidates on the post of Drug Inspector, who have absolutely no experience as required under the proviso to Rule 49 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1945’). He submits that the selections are illegal. He has also placed reliance upon Rules 51 and 52 of Rules, 1945 for the purposes of establishing that unless the Inspector has the experience, he cannot perform his duties as contemplated by Rules 51 and 52 of Rules, 1945. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition. 6. Controversy raised in the present writ petition needs examination with reference to qualifications prescribed under Rule 49 of Rules, 1945 qua appointment of a person as Inspector under the said Rules. Rule 49 of Rules, 1945 reads as follows : “49. 6. Controversy raised in the present writ petition needs examination with reference to qualifications prescribed under Rule 49 of Rules, 1945 qua appointment of a person as Inspector under the said Rules. Rule 49 of Rules, 1945 reads as follows : “49. Qualification 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 firms manufacturing any of the substances specified in Schedule C during the tenure of their services as Drug Inspectors; shall be authorised 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, 1983.]” 7. From a simple reading of Rule 49, it is apparently clear that essential educational qualification prescribed is degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences of Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology from a University established in Indian by law. Proviso to said Rule, lays down the requirement of experience of an Inspector for being authorised to inspect the manufacture of the substances mentioned in Schedule C. Schedule C to the Rules, 1945 provides for the list of substances. 8. I am of the considered opinion that the selection of the candidates who have no experience covered by the proviso as Inspectors will not be rendered illegal as being contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. I am of the considered opinion that the selection of the candidates who have no experience covered by the proviso as Inspectors will not be rendered illegal as being contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Experience provided under proviso to Rule 49 of Rules, 1945 is only for authorising the appointed Inspector concerned to inspect the manufacture of the substances mentioned in Schedule C. Schedule C consists of biological and special products referable to Rules 23, 61 and 76 and Part X. There are other duties also, which are required to be discharged by the Inspector under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 9. Petitioner wants to read the experience required before an Inspector is authorised to inspect manufacture of substances mentioned in Schedule ‘C’ as one of the essential qualifications for appointment as Drug Inspector itself. Such interpretation does not follow from the simple reading of the Rule 49. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is not justified in contending that in absence of possession of necessary experience as contemplated by proviso to Rule 49 of Rules, 1945, selections made are rendered illegal. 10. It is held that the corrigendum issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission is strictly in accordance with Statutory rules and the selection so held on the basis of corrigendum issued cannot be faulted with. 11. So far as Rules 51 and 52 are concerned, they also deal with particular duties required to be discharged by an Inspector for which necessary experience has been provided, it will not mean that the Inspector to be appointed for the first time must be possessed of the experience, as is being claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. There is no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————