Verdict: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by UPSC, effectively upholding the Delhi High Court’s decision.

• The Court refused to disturb the finding that UPSC could not insist on prior experience for Drug Inspector posts.
• It validated that the experience clause in Rule 49 is for authorizing inspections after appointment, not a pre-condition for initial eligibility.
• The added requirement of “18 months experience” in the advertisement was found legally untenable.

Verdict: Ruling in favor of Freshers.

• The Division Bench clarified that the Drug Inspector notification need not include any experience clause.
• The court upheld the BPSC’s notice (dated 23.05.2023) which waived Rule 49 experience conditions.
• Observation: “Experience as contained in proviso to Rule 49 is not a mandatory requirement for being appointed as Drug Inspector.”
• Result: Freshers with the prescribed degree were allowed to apply.

Verdict: Struck down State Amendment requiring experience.

• Justice Shashidhara Hegde reaffirmed that Rule 49 experience is not an eligibility criterion.
• The court noted that experience is gained “during the tenure of service as a Drug Inspector and not before appointment.”
• The judgment struck down the Karnataka Drugs Rules, 2019 which had tried to add a manufacturing/testing experience requirement, calling it beyond the State’s competence.

Verdict: Experience is for Post-Appointment Duties.

• Justices Sistani and Bhambhani ruled that a candidate’s experience certificate post-dating the test was invalid, but more importantly, distinguished pre-appointment qualifications from post-appointment duties.
• Key Ruling: Rule 49’s proviso is for authorizing inspections after appointment.
• Adding an 18-month experience criterion without parliamentary approval effectively amended statutory rules, which is impermissible.
• Directing UPSC to re-examine candidates “without insisting on the experience as notified.”

Verdict: Quashed Haryana’s experience requirement.

• A three-judge Full Bench struck down the addition of an experience qualification in the recruitment process.
• Declared that making experience “essential for appointment could not sustain.”
• The court held that the State had no power to impose extra criteria beyond the Central Rules.