State-cadre Junior Analyst qualifications do not conflict with statutory Food Analyst requirements.

The petitioners challenged Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration Department Analysts (Food and Drug Laboratory) Service Rules, 2017, as amended in 2020, and paragraph 6 of Advertisement No. 4/2024 for recruitment to 417 Junior Analyst (Food) posts.

The amended rule prescribed specified Master’s degrees or a degree in Veterinary Science, excluding the petitioners’ Bachelor of Technology qualifications in Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Oil Technology, Biotechnology and allied disciplines. They sought recognition of those qualifications as eligible, relying on Rule 2.1.4 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011, which prescribes qualifications for appointment as a Food Analyst.

The State maintained that Junior Analyst (Food) is a distinct State cadre post, while a person may perform Food Analyst functions only after separately satisfying the Central requirements and obtaining the requisite FSSAI qualification.

1. Whether the State cadre post of Junior Analyst (Food) is at par with the statutory post of Food Analyst under Section 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

2. Whether Rule 8(2), as amended in 2020, derogates from Rule 2.1.4 of the 2011 Rules and is ultra vires Article 254 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the petitioners could challenge the eligibility criteria after participating in the selection process without demur.

Section 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, provides for appointment of Food Analysts possessing qualifications prescribed by the Central Government; Rule 2.1.4 of the 2011 Rules specifies those qualifications and requires, among other things, qualification by the FSSAI-appointed Board.

The State may frame service rules under the proviso to Article 309, including rules governing recruitment and qualifications for State cadre posts.

Under Article 254, repugnancy arises where laws concerning the same field are irreconcilable or compliance with one necessarily entails breach of the other; courts should seek harmonious construction where possible.

The Court also applied the principle that prescribing qualifications is ordinarily a matter for the employer, subject to review for constitutional infirmity, manifest arbitrariness or absence of rational nexus.

It referred to West U.P. Sugar Mills Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 9 SCC 548, on the need for actual repugnancy, and Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2023 INSC 309, on waiver and acquiescence by candidates who participate in a selection process.

The Court found that Junior Analyst (Food) is a State cadre post created and regulated by the 2017 Rules, whereas Food Analyst is a statutory appointment under Section 45.

A Junior Analyst may be assigned Food Analyst functions only after separately meeting the Central requirements and being declared qualified by the FSSAI Board; the two posts therefore have distinct legal identities.

Since the State rule governs recruitment to the Junior Analyst cadre and does not dilute the requirements for statutory appointment as Food Analyst, the provisions can operate harmoniously and no repugnancy arises.

The prescribed qualifications had a rational connection with the post, and adding the petitioners’ degrees would require the Court to rewrite the service rule or substitute its assessment of equivalence for that of the State.

The Court rejected the participation objection because the petitioners’ challenge concerned eligibility itself.

It dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.