State Doesn’t Have The Authority To Frame Rules To Prescribe Qualifications For The Post Of FSO; Exclusive Domain Of Central Govt: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s Judgment which disqualified the candidates from being considered for the post of FSO.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that the State Government is not permitted to transgress into the field of prescribing the qualifications for the posts of FSO, which lies within the exclusive domain of the Central Government.
The Court quashed the Jharkhand High Court’s Judgment, which disqualified the Appellants—candidates with postgraduate science degree holders—from the Food Safety Officer (FSO) post, on the grounds that their Master’s degrees could not be considered valid qualifications for selection in Jharkhand.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “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…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.”
AOR Anup Kumar appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Jayant Mohan represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellants, who hold Master’s degrees in Microbiology and Food Science & Technology, applied for the post of FSO pursuant to an Advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC). Although they were declared successful in the written examination and called for interviews, they were later disqualified on the ground that their postgraduate degrees were not recognised as valid qualifications under the advertisement.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court stated, “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.”
“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…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,” the Court explained.
The Bench pointed out 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.”
Consequently, the Court held, “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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Chandra Shekhar Singh & Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. (CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10389 OF 2024)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Anup Kumar; Advocates Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Shruti Singh, Pragya Chaudhary, Awanish Gupta, Neha Jaiswal and Shivam Kumar
Respondents: AOR Jayant Mohan, Himanshu Shekhar and Revathy Raghavan; Advocates Parth Shekhar and Shubham Singh