Interpreting ‘Degree’ Under the Food Safety Rules: A Fair Recruitment Verdict

Case Name: CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGHAND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 10389 OF 2024

Date: March 20, 2025.

Quorum: JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

FACTS

The appellants have filed a petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority and argued that they had applied for the post of Food Safety Officer (FSO) under Advertisement No. 01/2016 issued by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC), wherein no particular educational qualification was specified. The appellants have mentioned that the above Advertisement offered eligibility criteria of degree in food technology, microbiology, dairy technology and others and also master’s degree in chemistry or medicine. The appellants, who held Master’s degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology, were eligible for the written examination and were invited for interviews. They were, however, disqualified later since their Master’s degrees were not accepted as valid according to the conditions laid down in the advertisement. This order motivated the appellants to approach the Jharkhand High Court with a challenge against the disqualification, wherein both Single Bench and Division Bench rejected their petitions, resulting in the current appeal.

ISSUES

1. Whether the definition of “degree” in Rule 2.1.3 of Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (FSS 2011 Rules) includes Master’s degrees in the relevant subject indicated in the advertisement?
2. Whether disqualification of candidates holding Master’s degrees was arbitrary and unconstitutional in the context of FSO qualification rules under statute?
3. Whether the State Government could limit qualifications contrary to the rules laid down by the Central Government?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act)

1. Section 37: FSO appointments and qualifications as established by the Central Government
2. Section 91: Central Government’s rule-making authority that includes qualifications of FSOs. 
3. Section 94: Limited rule-making authority of State Governments for functions and duties assigned under the FSS Act.

University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (UGC Act)

1. Section 22(3): The term “degree” signifies a Bachelor, Master, or Doctorate.

Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (FSS 2011 Rules)

 Rule 2.1.3: Qualifications as prescribed for FSOs associated with degrees in the subject area.

ARGUMENTS

APPELLANT CONTENTION

1. The word “degree” should include to a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree, or a Doctorate degree as laid out in section 22(3) of the UGC Act, 1956.
2. Master’s degrees in Microbiology and Food Science and Technology are subjects under Rule 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules.
3. Disqualifying applicants who have higher educational qualifications is capricious, unconstitutional, and contrary to the recruitment principle of fairness.
4. The 2022 amendment to the Food Safety and Standards Rules clarified that all degrees, Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate, are acceptable for FSOs.

RESPONDENT CONTENTION

1. The advertisement indicated that only Master’s degrees in Chemistry would be eligible, and that degrees in other subjects would be ineligible. 
2. The Appellants advertised in an open competition to which they did not challenge the conditions set out in the advertisement.
3. Disqualification of the Appellants is consistent with the requirements in the advertisement and the findings of the High Court. 
4. To broaden the eligibility would be contrary to the rules as framed in the recruitment notification.

ANALYSIS

The court observed that the FSS Act grants the Central Government the sole power to prescribe FSO qualifications, and that the regulations adopted by JPSC were in line with the FSS 2011 Rules. A literal reading of the word “degree” in Section 22(3) of the UGC Act, lacking any formal exclusion, endorsed original and Master’s qualifications for the FSO position. The court rejected the respondents’ disqualification of qualifications as arbitrary and not in accord with statutory language. Finally, the 2022 rule amendment clarified and legitimized the appellants’ interpretation.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court set aside the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the appellants were undoubtedly eligible for the post of FSO, according to the recruitment advertisement and the relevant rules. The matter at hand was remitted to the respondents for them to allow the appellants to continue in the recruitment exercise, commencing with the interview process. In the event there are no vacancies from the recruitment exercise carried on from 2016, supernumerary posts shall be created. Successful candidates among the appellants will be placed below the last selected candidate in the recruitment exercise conducted from 2016 while retaining seniority. The appointed appellants will not be entitled to back-pay but shall be entitled to service benefits on a notional basis.

CONCLUSION

The ruling stressed the importance of fairness and equal opportunity in the hiring process. It clarified that candidates who are more qualified cannot be dismissed without cause. And by requiring the review of disqualified candidates, the Court demonstrated its commitment to maintaining constitutional principles and alleviating injustices regarding employment qualifications.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY MARTHALA JOSHIKA REDDY