Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 372
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10389 OF 2024
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH
AND OTHERS …….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellants have approached this Court by way
of this appeal seeking a direction upon the respondents
to consider the candidature of the appellants for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.03.20
17:37:57 IST
Reason:
1
1
appointment as Food Safety Officers , pursuant to the
th
notification dated 7 October, 2015 issued by the
2
Jharkhand Public Service Commission upon the
requisition of the State of Jharkhand.
3. The appellants herein have the qualifications of
post-graduation in science with microbiology, food and
technology subjects. They applied for the post of FSO
3
in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 01/2016 issued
by the JPSC wherein the educational qualification for
the said post was stipulated in the terms below: -
“A Degree in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or
Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or
Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master Degree in
Chemistry or Degree in Medicine from a Recognized
University.”
4. The appellants were declared successful in the
written examination and were called for interviews by
JPSC, however, during the course of recruitment
process, they were disqualified on the ground that the
Master’s degree possessed by the appellants could not
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘FSO’.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘JPSC’.
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘subject advertisement’.
2
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
be treated as a valid educational qualification for the
purpose of selection to the post of FSO in the State of
Jharkhand.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellants invoked the writ
4
jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand seeking a
mandate to the concerned authorities to conduct the
interview of the appellants and to declare the result. A
prayer was also made to direct the respondents to
accept the Master’s degree held by the appellants as a
valid qualification for appointment to the post of FSO,
in pursuance to the subject advertisement. Learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated
th
30 June, 2020.
6. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred an intra
5
court appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
In the said appeal, respondent No.8-University Grants
6
Commission filed a counter affidavit in the said
proceedings affirming that ‘degree’ would include any
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
5
LPA No. 244 of 2020
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘UGC’.
3
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
degree in the specified subjects, either Bachelor’s or
Master’s. Thereafter, a supplementary affidavit came to
be filed by the UGC, wherein it was submitted that the
degree would mean any such degree which is previously
approved by the Central Government to be specified in
this behalf. The Division Bench dismissed the intra-
court appeal, preferred by the appellants, vide
nd
judgment dated 2 August, 2023, holding that the
appellants did not possess a degree of graduation in
Food Technology; Dairy Technology; Biotechnology; Oil
Technology; Agriculture Science; Veterinary Sciences;
Biochemistry or Microbiology in terms of the subject
advertisement and that the degrees of post-graduation
held by the appellants in the fields of Microbiology/Food
Science and Technology would not meet the
qualification criteria in terms of the subject
advertisement. The aforesaid judgment of the High
Court in the intra-court appeal is the subject matter of
challenge in this appeal by special leave.
4
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
Submission on behalf of the appellants: -
7. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants,
vehemently and fervently submitted that in the subject
advertisement, the eligibility criterion stipulated was
that the candidate should hold a degree in Food
Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil
Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary
Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology. In addition,
it was also provided, in the subject advertisement, that
the candidates having Master’s degree in Chemistry or
degree in medicine from a recognized University would
also be qualified to vie for the post.
8. Learned counsel further urged that the term
‘degree’ as mentioned in the subject advertisement
cannot be given a restrictive meaning so as to exclude
the post-graduation degree in the relevant subjects from
the ambit and scope thereof. He contended that the
subject ‘Adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods’,
7
under which the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
7
The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (Act No. 34 of 2006). Hereinafter,
being referred to as ‘FSS Act’.
5
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
has been promulgated, finds place at Item No. 18 of
List-III (Concurrent List), Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India.
9. As per Article 246(2) of the Constitution of India,
the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures have
concurrent powers to make laws with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in the List III of the Seventh
Schedule.
10. Learned counsel referred to Article 254 of the
Constitution of India and urged that in case of
inconsistency between the laws made under the
concurrent list by the Parliament and the State
Legislature, the law enacted by the former will prevail.
He further referred to the FSS Act and urged that sub-
section (1) of Section 37 therein clearly provides that the
qualifications for the post of FSOs shall be prescribed
by the Central Government. The State Government’s
role under the FSS Act is limited to authorizing any
Officer of the State Government, having the requisite
qualifications in terms of the sub-section (1) of Section
6
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
37, to perform the functions of a FSO within a specified
jurisdiction.
11. He further contended that sub-section (2) of
Section 37 caters to transitory situations which may
occur owing to the non-availability of regularly selected
FSOs. In such a situation, the State Governments have
been given the power to authorise any other Officer,
having requisite qualifications to perform the functions
of the FSO.
12. Learned counsel further referred to Section 91 of
the FSS Act to urge that the statute clearly provides that
only the Central Government is competent to make
rules for prescribing qualifications for the post of FSO.
The power of the State Government to make rules is
provided under Section 94 of the FSS Act, which is
limited only to the extent of defining the functions and
duties to be assigned to the State Government and the
State Commissioner of Food Safety under the FSS Act,
and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
7
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
13. Learned counsel also submitted that the term
‘Degree’ as defined in Section 22(3) of the University
8
Grants Commission Act, 1956 includes the ‘Bachelor’s
Degree’, ‘Master’s Degree’ and ‘Doctorate Degree’. Thus,
wherever any statute or a notification stipulates ‘degree’
as a qualification, the same would cover all the three
degrees i.e., Bachelor’s, Master’s and a Doctorate
Degree, within its scope and ambit. To buttress this
contention, learned counsel referred to the
supplementary counter affidavit filed by the UGC,
wherein the Commission has specifically mentioned
that the degree in the present context would be any
such degree with the previous approval of the Central
Government.
14. It was further contended that the educational
qualification prescribed for eligibility for the post of FSO
in the FSS Act applies uniformly across the country,
including the State of Jharkhand, and the
discrimination sought to be carved out by the
respondents in the subject recruitment process, by
8
Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘UGC Act’.
8
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
giving a different and restricted interpretation to the
term ‘degree’, is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
15. Reference was also made by learned counsel for
the appellants to the amendment introduced by the
Central Government by virtue of the Food Safety and
Standards (First Amendment) Rules, 2022 wherein it
has been specifically provided that the qualification for
the post of FSO shall be a Bachelor’s or a Master’s or a
Doctorate degree in the aforesaid subjects. As per the
learned counsel, this amendment has been brought
around to clear the air in respect of the confusion
prevailing regarding the eligibility criteria for the post of
FSO. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and
9
Kashmir and Others ; to urge that a candidate
possessing a higher degree in the subject prescribed
under the advertisement cannot be disqualified by
reason of ineligibility for not possessing the required
degree.
9
(2015) 17 SCC 709.
9
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
16. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
appellants implored the Court to accept the appeal, set
aside the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court, and direct
the respondents to complete the recruitment process by
giving an opportunity to the appellants to participate in
the interview and to appoint them, with all
consequential benefits, if they qualify. In the
alternative, he implored the Court to direct the
respondents to consider the claim of the appellants in
the subsequent recruitment process conducted in the
year 2023.
Submission on behalf of the respondents:-
17. , learned counsel appearing for the
Per contra
respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. They
urged that the appellants participated in the
recruitment process without challenging the conditions
set out in the subject advertisement, which in
unequivocable terms provided that the educational
qualification required for the subject posts would be a
10
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or
Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science
or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology
or Master’s degree in Chemistry. The eligibility of a
candidate holding a Master’s degree has been restricted
to only the Chemistry subject in the column of
educational qualifications prescribed in the subject
advertisement.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that taking consideration of the specific qualifications
mentioned in the subject advertisement, the appellants
cannot be permitted to expand the scope of the word
‘degree’ as appearing in the advertisement by claiming
that the same would also cover a Master’s degree in the
contemporary subjects in contravention to the
stipulations as made in the subject advertisement.
19. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the concurrent findings
recorded by the learned Single Bench and the Division
Bench of the High Court, in rejecting the claims made
by the appellants, do not warrant any interference.
11
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
Discussion:-
20. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the bar and have gone
through the material placed on record.
21. It is not in dispute that the appellants laid a claim
for the posts in question by disclosing that they were
possessed of Master’s degrees in Microbiology; Food
Science and technology subjects. Thus, there was no
ambiguity or misrepresentation by the appellants
regarding their educational qualification at the time of
applying in the subject recruitment process. The
respondent-recruiting authority consciously accepted
the application forms of the appellants and pursuant to
their performance on merit, the appellants were called
for an interview. It is at this stage that the appellants
were declared disqualified and were ousted from the
selection process on the premise that they were holding
Master’s degrees in the relevant subject/s, whereas the
rules and the advertisement clearly provided that the
required degree should be at the graduate level only.
12
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
22. The statutory provisions governing the
qualifications and service conditions for the post of FSO
are Sections 37, 91 and 94 of the FSS Act, which are
extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“37. Food Safety Officer.
(1) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall,
by notification, appoint such persons as he
thinks fit, having the qualifications
prescribed by the Central Government, as
Food Safety Officers for such local areas as
he may assign to them for the purpose of
performing functions under this Act and the
rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) The State Government may authorise
any officer of the State Government having
the qualifications prescribed under sub-
section (1) to perform the functions of a
Food Safety Officer within a specified
jurisdiction.
91. Power of Central Government to make rules.
(1) The Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, make
rules for carrying out the provisions of this
Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to
the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:-
13
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
(a) salary, terms and conditions of
service of Chairperson and Members
other than ex officio Members under
subsection (2) and the manner of
subscribing to an oath of office and
secrecy under sub-section (3) of
section 7;
(b) qualifications of Food Safety
Officer under sub-section (1) of
section 37;
(c) the manner of taking the extract
of documents seized under sub-
clause (8) of section 38;
(d) determination of cases for
referring to appropriate courts and
time-frame for such determination
under sub-section (4) of section 42;
(e) qualifications of Food Analysts
under section 45;
(f) the manner of sending sample for
analysis and details of the procedure
to be followed in this regard under
subsection (1) of section 47;
(g) the procedure to be followed in
adjudication of cases under sub-
section (1) of section 68;
(h) qualifications, terms of office,
resignation and removal of Presiding
Officer under sub-section (4), the
procedure of appeal and powers of
Tribunal under sub-section (5) of
section 70;
14
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
(i) any other matter relating to
procedure and powers of Tribunal
under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of
section 71;
(j) the fee to be paid for preferring an
appeal to the High Court under
subsection (1) of section 76;
(k) form and time of preparing
budget under sub-section (1) of
section 81;
(l) form and statement of accounts
under sub-section (1) of section 83;
(m) the form and time for preparing
annual report by Food Authority
under sub-section (1) of section 84;
and
(n) any other matter which is
required to be, or may be, prescribed
or in respect of which provision is to
be made by rules by the Central
Government.
94. Power of State Government to make
rules
(1) Subject to the powers of the Central
Government and the Food Authority to
make rules and regulations respectively, the
State Government may, after previous
publication and with the previous approval
of the Food Authority, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the
functions and duties assigned to the State
Government and the State Commissioner of
15
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
Food Safety under this Act and the rules
and regulations made thereunder.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to
the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:—
(a) other functions of the
Commissioner of Food Safety under
clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section
30;
(b) earmarking a fund and the
manner in which reward shall be
paid to a person rendering
assistance in detection of offence or
apprehension of offender under
section 95; and
(c) any other matter which is
required to be, or may be prescribed
or in respect of which provision is to
be made by rules by the State
Government.
(3) Every rule made by the State
Government under this Act shall be laid, as
soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of the State Legislature where it
consists of two Houses or where such State
Legislature consists of one House, before
that House.”
23. A bare perusal of Section 37(1) of the FSS Act,
makes it clear that the appointment of a FSO is to be
made by the Commissioner of Food Safety, and the
16
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
candidates should be having the qualification
“prescribed by the Central Government for such
post.” (emphasis supplied)
24. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 37, the State
Government has been given the limited power to
appoint any other officer of the State Government,
having the qualification prescribed under Sub-Section
(1), to perform the functions of the FSO within a
specified jurisdiction.
25. The plain language of the statute makes it clear
that the prescription of qualification for the post of FSO
is within the exclusive domain of the Central
Government and the power to appoint is given to the
Commissioner of Food Safety.
26. The language of Section 91(2)(b) of the FSS Act,
fortifies the said conclusion, that the power to prescribe
educational criterion for the post of FSO lies exclusively
with the Central Government. The heading of the
Section 91 is ‘Power of Central Government to make
rules’. Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 91 refers to the
17
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
qualifications of the FSO under Sub-Section (1) of
Section 37. Neither in the Act nor in the Rules, has the
State Government been given the authority to frame the
rules to prescribe the qualifications for the post of FSO.
Section 94 of the FSS Act, which talks about the power
of the State Government to make rules is restricted in
its operation and gives a limited role to the State
Government to frame rules for carrying out the
functions and duties assigned to the State Government
and the State Commissioner of Food Safety under the
FSS Act, the rules and the regulations made
thereunder. Thus, the scope of powers to be exercised
by the State Government is limited only to the extent of
formulating the modalities for carrying out the
functions and duties assigned to the FSO under the FSS
Act. Clearly thus, the FSS Act does not permit the State
Government to transgress into the field of prescribing
the qualifications for the posts of FSO, which lies within
the exclusive domain of the Central Government.
27. The Central Government, while exercising powers
under Section 91 of the FSS Act notified the Food Safety
18
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
10
and Standard Rules, 2011 wherein, the educational
qualifications for the post of the FSO have been
provided as under: -
“2.1.3: Food Safety Officer
1. Qualification: Food Safety Officer shall be a whole
time officer and shall, on the date on which he is so
appointed possesses the following:
(i) a degree in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology
or Agricultural Science or Veterinary Sciences
or Bio-Chemistry or Microbiology or Master’s
Degree in Chemistry or degree in medicine from
a recognized University, or
(ii) any other equivalent/recognized
qualification notified by the Central
Government, and
(iii) has successfully completed training as
specified by the Food Authority in a recognized
institute or Institution approved for the
purpose.
Provided that no person who has any financial
interest in the manufacture, import or sale of any
article of food shall be appointed to be a Food Safety
Officer under this rule. ”
28. These very rules have been adopted by the State of
Jharkhand mutatis mutandis . It is in this background,
10
Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘FSS 2011 Rules’.
19
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
that we are required to adjudicate whether the term
‘degree’ as mentioned in the rules and the recruitment
notification can be restricted to “Bachelor’s degree” or
whether the same would cover in its ambit, the
“Master’s degree” as well.
29. The term ‘degree’ is defined under Section 22(3)
the UGC Act, which states that the ‘degree’ means the
‘Bachelor’s Degree’, ‘Master’s Degree’ and the ‘Doctorate
Degree’. Thus, wherever the word ‘degree’ is used,
unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would
include within its scope and ambit all three, ‘Bachelor’s
Degree’, ‘Master’s Degree’ and a ‘Doctorate Degree’.
30. In the present case, the respondents have
disqualified the appellants on account of the fact that
they hold Master’s degree in different subjects whereas,
as per Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules ( supra) and
the subject advertisement, the educational qualification
of a master’s degree is only recognized in “Chemistry”
subject, whereas for all the other subjects, only a
graduation degree would be the qualifying criterion.
20
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
31. We feel that there is no ambiguity whatsoever in
the FSS 2011 Rules or the subject advertisement which
can exclude the Master’s degree in subjects referred to
in the preceding part of the Rule 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011
Rules ( supra ), other than Chemistry, as being a valid
qualification. The special reference to the Master’s
degree is given in the said Rule, only for those who have
acquired their degree course in Chemistry subject, for
whom, the minimum qualifying criterion will be a
Master’s degree in Chemistry. However, so far as the
other subjects are concerned, a person having any
degree, be it graduation or post-graduation, would be
equally qualified for the post in question.
32. Reading the language of the statutory provision in
a literal sense and applying the golden rule of
interpretation, this is the only logical and permissible
interpretation. Hence, we have no hesitation in
concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a
degree course in “Chemistry” subject, desires to apply
for the post of FSO, he must possess a master’s degree
in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken
college education in the subjects of food technology;
21
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology;
agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or
microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified
for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e.,
either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate degree
in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale
behind excluding the candidates having master’s or a
doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim
to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would
be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
33. It is also pertinent to note that, in order to remove
the prevailing confusion, the Central Government has
amended the ‘Food Safety and Standard Rules’ in the
year 2022 by providing that the ‘Bachelor’s Degree’ or a
‘Master’s Degree’ or a ‘Doctorate Degree’ in Food
Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil
Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary
Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master’s
Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine would be a
valid qualification for the post of FSO.
22
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
34. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the
appellants, who possessed post-graduate degrees in
subjects covered under Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011
Rules (reproduced supra ), were definitely and
unquestionably qualified for the post of FSO under the
subject advertisement. The judgment in the case of
Parvaiz Ahmad Parry (supra) , relied upon by the
appellants, covers the controversy on all fours. Hence,
nd
the impugned judgments, dated 2 August, 2023 of the
th
Division Bench of the High Court and 30 June, 2023
of the learned Single Bench of the High Court, do not
stand to scrutiny and are liable to be set aside.
Conclusion: -
35. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in the following
manner: -
i. The impugned judgments rendered by the
Division Bench and the Single Bench,
holding that the appellants were not qualified
for the post of FSO, are quashed and set
aside.
23
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
ii. The prayer made by the appellants to appear
in the interview under the Advertisement No.
th
18 of 2023 dated 15 June, 2023 issued by
JPSC, cannot be acceded to as they did not
apply under this advertisement.
iii. In order to do complete justice, and in case
vacancies do not exist in the recruitment
process 2016, then the respondents shall
create supernumerary posts to accommodate
the appellants who shall be allowed to
partake in the recruitment process from the
stage they were disqualified, i.e., from the
interview stage. In case after undergoing
interviews, the appellants succeed and are
placed at par or higher in merit as compared
to the last successful candidate in the
particular category, they shall be offered
appointment which shall be effective from the
date of publication of the first select list in
the recruitment process 2016. We further
clarify that since the selected candidates
were never impleaded and heard in the
24
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
proceedings before the High Court or in this
Court, appropriate direction has to be given
to ensure that their seniority position is not
disturbed at this belated stage. It is,
therefore, provided that the successful
candidates from amongst the appellants
shall be placed below the last candidate
selected and appointed in the subject
selection process.
iv. It is further clarified that in case the
appellants succeed and are offered
appointment, they shall not be entitled to
back wages. However, they shall be entitled
to all service benefits on a notional basis.
36. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 20, 2025.
25
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10389 OF 2024
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH
AND OTHERS …….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND
AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. The appellants have approached this Court by way
of this appeal seeking a direction upon the respondents
to consider the candidature of the appellants for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.03.20
17:37:57 IST
Reason:
1
1
appointment as Food Safety Officers , pursuant to the
th
notification dated 7 October, 2015 issued by the
2
Jharkhand Public Service Commission upon the
requisition of the State of Jharkhand.
3. The appellants herein have the qualifications of
post-graduation in science with microbiology, food and
technology subjects. They applied for the post of FSO
3
in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 01/2016 issued
by the JPSC wherein the educational qualification for
the said post was stipulated in the terms below: -
“A Degree in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or
Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or
Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master Degree in
Chemistry or Degree in Medicine from a Recognized
University.”
4. The appellants were declared successful in the
written examination and were called for interviews by
JPSC, however, during the course of recruitment
process, they were disqualified on the ground that the
Master’s degree possessed by the appellants could not
1
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘FSO’.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘JPSC’.
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘subject advertisement’.
2
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
be treated as a valid educational qualification for the
purpose of selection to the post of FSO in the State of
Jharkhand.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellants invoked the writ
4
jurisdiction of the High Court of Jharkhand seeking a
mandate to the concerned authorities to conduct the
interview of the appellants and to declare the result. A
prayer was also made to direct the respondents to
accept the Master’s degree held by the appellants as a
valid qualification for appointment to the post of FSO,
in pursuance to the subject advertisement. Learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated
th
30 June, 2020.
6. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred an intra
5
court appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
In the said appeal, respondent No.8-University Grants
6
Commission filed a counter affidavit in the said
proceedings affirming that ‘degree’ would include any
4
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
5
LPA No. 244 of 2020
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘UGC’.
3
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
degree in the specified subjects, either Bachelor’s or
Master’s. Thereafter, a supplementary affidavit came to
be filed by the UGC, wherein it was submitted that the
degree would mean any such degree which is previously
approved by the Central Government to be specified in
this behalf. The Division Bench dismissed the intra-
court appeal, preferred by the appellants, vide
nd
judgment dated 2 August, 2023, holding that the
appellants did not possess a degree of graduation in
Food Technology; Dairy Technology; Biotechnology; Oil
Technology; Agriculture Science; Veterinary Sciences;
Biochemistry or Microbiology in terms of the subject
advertisement and that the degrees of post-graduation
held by the appellants in the fields of Microbiology/Food
Science and Technology would not meet the
qualification criteria in terms of the subject
advertisement. The aforesaid judgment of the High
Court in the intra-court appeal is the subject matter of
challenge in this appeal by special leave.
4
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
Submission on behalf of the appellants: -
7. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants,
vehemently and fervently submitted that in the subject
advertisement, the eligibility criterion stipulated was
that the candidate should hold a degree in Food
Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil
Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary
Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology. In addition,
it was also provided, in the subject advertisement, that
the candidates having Master’s degree in Chemistry or
degree in medicine from a recognized University would
also be qualified to vie for the post.
8. Learned counsel further urged that the term
‘degree’ as mentioned in the subject advertisement
cannot be given a restrictive meaning so as to exclude
the post-graduation degree in the relevant subjects from
the ambit and scope thereof. He contended that the
subject ‘Adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods’,
7
under which the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
7
The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (Act No. 34 of 2006). Hereinafter,
being referred to as ‘FSS Act’.
5
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
has been promulgated, finds place at Item No. 18 of
List-III (Concurrent List), Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India.
9. As per Article 246(2) of the Constitution of India,
the Parliament as well as the State Legislatures have
concurrent powers to make laws with respect to any of
the matters enumerated in the List III of the Seventh
Schedule.
10. Learned counsel referred to Article 254 of the
Constitution of India and urged that in case of
inconsistency between the laws made under the
concurrent list by the Parliament and the State
Legislature, the law enacted by the former will prevail.
He further referred to the FSS Act and urged that sub-
section (1) of Section 37 therein clearly provides that the
qualifications for the post of FSOs shall be prescribed
by the Central Government. The State Government’s
role under the FSS Act is limited to authorizing any
Officer of the State Government, having the requisite
qualifications in terms of the sub-section (1) of Section
6
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
37, to perform the functions of a FSO within a specified
jurisdiction.
11. He further contended that sub-section (2) of
Section 37 caters to transitory situations which may
occur owing to the non-availability of regularly selected
FSOs. In such a situation, the State Governments have
been given the power to authorise any other Officer,
having requisite qualifications to perform the functions
of the FSO.
12. Learned counsel further referred to Section 91 of
the FSS Act to urge that the statute clearly provides that
only the Central Government is competent to make
rules for prescribing qualifications for the post of FSO.
The power of the State Government to make rules is
provided under Section 94 of the FSS Act, which is
limited only to the extent of defining the functions and
duties to be assigned to the State Government and the
State Commissioner of Food Safety under the FSS Act,
and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
7
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
13. Learned counsel also submitted that the term
‘Degree’ as defined in Section 22(3) of the University
8
Grants Commission Act, 1956 includes the ‘Bachelor’s
Degree’, ‘Master’s Degree’ and ‘Doctorate Degree’. Thus,
wherever any statute or a notification stipulates ‘degree’
as a qualification, the same would cover all the three
degrees i.e., Bachelor’s, Master’s and a Doctorate
Degree, within its scope and ambit. To buttress this
contention, learned counsel referred to the
supplementary counter affidavit filed by the UGC,
wherein the Commission has specifically mentioned
that the degree in the present context would be any
such degree with the previous approval of the Central
Government.
14. It was further contended that the educational
qualification prescribed for eligibility for the post of FSO
in the FSS Act applies uniformly across the country,
including the State of Jharkhand, and the
discrimination sought to be carved out by the
respondents in the subject recruitment process, by
8
Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘UGC Act’.
8
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
giving a different and restricted interpretation to the
term ‘degree’, is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
15. Reference was also made by learned counsel for
the appellants to the amendment introduced by the
Central Government by virtue of the Food Safety and
Standards (First Amendment) Rules, 2022 wherein it
has been specifically provided that the qualification for
the post of FSO shall be a Bachelor’s or a Master’s or a
Doctorate degree in the aforesaid subjects. As per the
learned counsel, this amendment has been brought
around to clear the air in respect of the confusion
prevailing regarding the eligibility criteria for the post of
FSO. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court
in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and
9
Kashmir and Others ; to urge that a candidate
possessing a higher degree in the subject prescribed
under the advertisement cannot be disqualified by
reason of ineligibility for not possessing the required
degree.
9
(2015) 17 SCC 709.
9
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
16. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
appellants implored the Court to accept the appeal, set
aside the judgments passed by the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court, and direct
the respondents to complete the recruitment process by
giving an opportunity to the appellants to participate in
the interview and to appoint them, with all
consequential benefits, if they qualify. In the
alternative, he implored the Court to direct the
respondents to consider the claim of the appellants in
the subsequent recruitment process conducted in the
year 2023.
Submission on behalf of the respondents:-
17. , learned counsel appearing for the
Per contra
respondents, vehemently and fervently opposed the
submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. They
urged that the appellants participated in the
recruitment process without challenging the conditions
set out in the subject advertisement, which in
unequivocable terms provided that the educational
qualification required for the subject posts would be a
10
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or
Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science
or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology
or Master’s degree in Chemistry. The eligibility of a
candidate holding a Master’s degree has been restricted
to only the Chemistry subject in the column of
educational qualifications prescribed in the subject
advertisement.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that taking consideration of the specific qualifications
mentioned in the subject advertisement, the appellants
cannot be permitted to expand the scope of the word
‘degree’ as appearing in the advertisement by claiming
that the same would also cover a Master’s degree in the
contemporary subjects in contravention to the
stipulations as made in the subject advertisement.
19. On these grounds, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the concurrent findings
recorded by the learned Single Bench and the Division
Bench of the High Court, in rejecting the claims made
by the appellants, do not warrant any interference.
11
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
Discussion:-
20. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at the bar and have gone
through the material placed on record.
21. It is not in dispute that the appellants laid a claim
for the posts in question by disclosing that they were
possessed of Master’s degrees in Microbiology; Food
Science and technology subjects. Thus, there was no
ambiguity or misrepresentation by the appellants
regarding their educational qualification at the time of
applying in the subject recruitment process. The
respondent-recruiting authority consciously accepted
the application forms of the appellants and pursuant to
their performance on merit, the appellants were called
for an interview. It is at this stage that the appellants
were declared disqualified and were ousted from the
selection process on the premise that they were holding
Master’s degrees in the relevant subject/s, whereas the
rules and the advertisement clearly provided that the
required degree should be at the graduate level only.
12
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
22. The statutory provisions governing the
qualifications and service conditions for the post of FSO
are Sections 37, 91 and 94 of the FSS Act, which are
extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“37. Food Safety Officer.
(1) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall,
by notification, appoint such persons as he
thinks fit, having the qualifications
prescribed by the Central Government, as
Food Safety Officers for such local areas as
he may assign to them for the purpose of
performing functions under this Act and the
rules and regulations made thereunder.
(2) The State Government may authorise
any officer of the State Government having
the qualifications prescribed under sub-
section (1) to perform the functions of a
Food Safety Officer within a specified
jurisdiction.
91. Power of Central Government to make rules.
(1) The Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, make
rules for carrying out the provisions of this
Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to
the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:-
13
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
(a) salary, terms and conditions of
service of Chairperson and Members
other than ex officio Members under
subsection (2) and the manner of
subscribing to an oath of office and
secrecy under sub-section (3) of
section 7;
(b) qualifications of Food Safety
Officer under sub-section (1) of
section 37;
(c) the manner of taking the extract
of documents seized under sub-
clause (8) of section 38;
(d) determination of cases for
referring to appropriate courts and
time-frame for such determination
under sub-section (4) of section 42;
(e) qualifications of Food Analysts
under section 45;
(f) the manner of sending sample for
analysis and details of the procedure
to be followed in this regard under
subsection (1) of section 47;
(g) the procedure to be followed in
adjudication of cases under sub-
section (1) of section 68;
(h) qualifications, terms of office,
resignation and removal of Presiding
Officer under sub-section (4), the
procedure of appeal and powers of
Tribunal under sub-section (5) of
section 70;
14
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
(i) any other matter relating to
procedure and powers of Tribunal
under clause (g) of sub-section (2) of
section 71;
(j) the fee to be paid for preferring an
appeal to the High Court under
subsection (1) of section 76;
(k) form and time of preparing
budget under sub-section (1) of
section 81;
(l) form and statement of accounts
under sub-section (1) of section 83;
(m) the form and time for preparing
annual report by Food Authority
under sub-section (1) of section 84;
and
(n) any other matter which is
required to be, or may be, prescribed
or in respect of which provision is to
be made by rules by the Central
Government.
94. Power of State Government to make
rules
(1) Subject to the powers of the Central
Government and the Food Authority to
make rules and regulations respectively, the
State Government may, after previous
publication and with the previous approval
of the Food Authority, by notification in the
Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the
functions and duties assigned to the State
Government and the State Commissioner of
15
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
Food Safety under this Act and the rules
and regulations made thereunder.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to
the generality of the foregoing power, such
rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:—
(a) other functions of the
Commissioner of Food Safety under
clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section
30;
(b) earmarking a fund and the
manner in which reward shall be
paid to a person rendering
assistance in detection of offence or
apprehension of offender under
section 95; and
(c) any other matter which is
required to be, or may be prescribed
or in respect of which provision is to
be made by rules by the State
Government.
(3) Every rule made by the State
Government under this Act shall be laid, as
soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of the State Legislature where it
consists of two Houses or where such State
Legislature consists of one House, before
that House.”
23. A bare perusal of Section 37(1) of the FSS Act,
makes it clear that the appointment of a FSO is to be
made by the Commissioner of Food Safety, and the
16
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
candidates should be having the qualification
“prescribed by the Central Government for such
post.” (emphasis supplied)
24. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 37, the State
Government has been given the limited power to
appoint any other officer of the State Government,
having the qualification prescribed under Sub-Section
(1), to perform the functions of the FSO within a
specified jurisdiction.
25. The plain language of the statute makes it clear
that the prescription of qualification for the post of FSO
is within the exclusive domain of the Central
Government and the power to appoint is given to the
Commissioner of Food Safety.
26. The language of Section 91(2)(b) of the FSS Act,
fortifies the said conclusion, that the power to prescribe
educational criterion for the post of FSO lies exclusively
with the Central Government. The heading of the
Section 91 is ‘Power of Central Government to make
rules’. Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 91 refers to the
17
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
qualifications of the FSO under Sub-Section (1) of
Section 37. Neither in the Act nor in the Rules, has the
State Government been given the authority to frame the
rules to prescribe the qualifications for the post of FSO.
Section 94 of the FSS Act, which talks about the power
of the State Government to make rules is restricted in
its operation and gives a limited role to the State
Government to frame rules for carrying out the
functions and duties assigned to the State Government
and the State Commissioner of Food Safety under the
FSS Act, the rules and the regulations made
thereunder. Thus, the scope of powers to be exercised
by the State Government is limited only to the extent of
formulating the modalities for carrying out the
functions and duties assigned to the FSO under the FSS
Act. Clearly thus, the FSS Act does not permit the State
Government to transgress into the field of prescribing
the qualifications for the posts of FSO, which lies within
the exclusive domain of the Central Government.
27. The Central Government, while exercising powers
under Section 91 of the FSS Act notified the Food Safety
18
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
10
and Standard Rules, 2011 wherein, the educational
qualifications for the post of the FSO have been
provided as under: -
“2.1.3: Food Safety Officer
1. Qualification: Food Safety Officer shall be a whole
time officer and shall, on the date on which he is so
appointed possesses the following:
(i) a degree in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology
or Agricultural Science or Veterinary Sciences
or Bio-Chemistry or Microbiology or Master’s
Degree in Chemistry or degree in medicine from
a recognized University, or
(ii) any other equivalent/recognized
qualification notified by the Central
Government, and
(iii) has successfully completed training as
specified by the Food Authority in a recognized
institute or Institution approved for the
purpose.
Provided that no person who has any financial
interest in the manufacture, import or sale of any
article of food shall be appointed to be a Food Safety
Officer under this rule. ”
28. These very rules have been adopted by the State of
Jharkhand mutatis mutandis . It is in this background,
10
Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘FSS 2011 Rules’.
19
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
that we are required to adjudicate whether the term
‘degree’ as mentioned in the rules and the recruitment
notification can be restricted to “Bachelor’s degree” or
whether the same would cover in its ambit, the
“Master’s degree” as well.
29. The term ‘degree’ is defined under Section 22(3)
the UGC Act, which states that the ‘degree’ means the
‘Bachelor’s Degree’, ‘Master’s Degree’ and the ‘Doctorate
Degree’. Thus, wherever the word ‘degree’ is used,
unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would
include within its scope and ambit all three, ‘Bachelor’s
Degree’, ‘Master’s Degree’ and a ‘Doctorate Degree’.
30. In the present case, the respondents have
disqualified the appellants on account of the fact that
they hold Master’s degree in different subjects whereas,
as per Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules ( supra) and
the subject advertisement, the educational qualification
of a master’s degree is only recognized in “Chemistry”
subject, whereas for all the other subjects, only a
graduation degree would be the qualifying criterion.
20
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
31. We feel that there is no ambiguity whatsoever in
the FSS 2011 Rules or the subject advertisement which
can exclude the Master’s degree in subjects referred to
in the preceding part of the Rule 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011
Rules ( supra ), other than Chemistry, as being a valid
qualification. The special reference to the Master’s
degree is given in the said Rule, only for those who have
acquired their degree course in Chemistry subject, for
whom, the minimum qualifying criterion will be a
Master’s degree in Chemistry. However, so far as the
other subjects are concerned, a person having any
degree, be it graduation or post-graduation, would be
equally qualified for the post in question.
32. Reading the language of the statutory provision in
a literal sense and applying the golden rule of
interpretation, this is the only logical and permissible
interpretation. Hence, we have no hesitation in
concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a
degree course in “Chemistry” subject, desires to apply
for the post of FSO, he must possess a master’s degree
in that subject. However, if a candidate has taken
college education in the subjects of food technology;
21
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology;
agricultural science; veterinary science; biochemistry or
microbiology, then such a candidate would be qualified
for the FSO post, if he holds any one of the degrees, i.e.,
either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate degree
in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale
behind excluding the candidates having master’s or a
doctorate degree in these subjects from staking a claim
to the post of FSO because such an interpretation would
be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
33. It is also pertinent to note that, in order to remove
the prevailing confusion, the Central Government has
amended the ‘Food Safety and Standard Rules’ in the
year 2022 by providing that the ‘Bachelor’s Degree’ or a
‘Master’s Degree’ or a ‘Doctorate Degree’ in Food
Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil
Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary
Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master’s
Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine would be a
valid qualification for the post of FSO.
22
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
34. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the
appellants, who possessed post-graduate degrees in
subjects covered under Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011
Rules (reproduced supra ), were definitely and
unquestionably qualified for the post of FSO under the
subject advertisement. The judgment in the case of
Parvaiz Ahmad Parry (supra) , relied upon by the
appellants, covers the controversy on all fours. Hence,
nd
the impugned judgments, dated 2 August, 2023 of the
th
Division Bench of the High Court and 30 June, 2023
of the learned Single Bench of the High Court, do not
stand to scrutiny and are liable to be set aside.
Conclusion: -
35. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in the following
manner: -
i. The impugned judgments rendered by the
Division Bench and the Single Bench,
holding that the appellants were not qualified
for the post of FSO, are quashed and set
aside.
23
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
ii. The prayer made by the appellants to appear
in the interview under the Advertisement No.
th
18 of 2023 dated 15 June, 2023 issued by
JPSC, cannot be acceded to as they did not
apply under this advertisement.
iii. In order to do complete justice, and in case
vacancies do not exist in the recruitment
process 2016, then the respondents shall
create supernumerary posts to accommodate
the appellants who shall be allowed to
partake in the recruitment process from the
stage they were disqualified, i.e., from the
interview stage. In case after undergoing
interviews, the appellants succeed and are
placed at par or higher in merit as compared
to the last successful candidate in the
particular category, they shall be offered
appointment which shall be effective from the
date of publication of the first select list in
the recruitment process 2016. We further
clarify that since the selected candidates
were never impleaded and heard in the
24
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024
proceedings before the High Court or in this
Court, appropriate direction has to be given
to ensure that their seniority position is not
disturbed at this belated stage. It is,
therefore, provided that the successful
candidates from amongst the appellants
shall be placed below the last candidate
selected and appointed in the subject
selection process.
iv. It is further clarified that in case the
appellants succeed and are offered
appointment, they shall not be entitled to
back wages. However, they shall be entitled
to all service benefits on a notional basis.
36. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 20, 2025.
25
Civil Appeal No(s).10389 of 2024