Eligibility must be based on Central Government rules, not State modifications: SC quashes High Court’s verdict on candidate disqualification, Read Judgment

"There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the FSS 2011 Rules or the subject advertisement which can exclude the Master’s degree in relevant subjects as a valid qualification," the Supreme Court observed while hearing an appeal concerning the eligibility criteria for Food Safety Officer (FSO) posts under the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).

The petitioners, who held postgraduate degrees in relevant fields, were disqualified at the interview stage despite initially being allowed to participate. The case raised questions about the interpretation of qualifications under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and whether the State Government had the authority to impose additional conditions beyond those set by the Central Government

The appellants approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to consider their candidature for the post of Food Safety Officers (FSO) under the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC). They hold post-graduate degrees in science with microbiology, food science, and technology subjects. They had applied under Advertisement No. 01/2016, which prescribed a degree in specific disciplines, including Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Biotechnology, and others, as well as a Master’s degree in Chemistry or a degree in Medicine.

Despite clearing the written examination, the appellants were disqualified during the recruitment process on the ground that their post-graduate degrees did not meet the required qualifications. Aggrieved, they filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court, seeking directions to conduct their interviews and accept their qualifications. The Single Judge dismissed their plea on June 30, 2020. Their intra-court appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench on August 2, 2023, holding that they lacked a qualifying undergraduate degree in the prescribed subjects. The appellants then challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

The appellants contended that the term "degree" in the advertisement should not be narrowly construed to exclude postgraduate degrees. They argued that under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, a "degree" includes Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees. They relied on UGC’s supplementary affidavit, which stated that any approved degree should be considered valid.

They further submitted that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSS Act), enacted under the Concurrent List, mandates that qualification criteria for FSOs must be prescribed by the Central Government. Thus, the State of Jharkhand could not impose additional restrictions.

The appellants also cited the 2022 amendment to the Food Safety and Standards Rules, which explicitly recognized Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees as valid qualifications for FSO positions. They argued that a higher degree should not disqualify a candidate who meets the subject requirements, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2015). They sought a direction to either allow their participation in the interview or consider them for future recruitment.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The respondents opposed the appellants' claims, arguing that the advertisement explicitly restricted eligibility to specific undergraduate degrees, with an exception for only Master's degrees in Chemistry. They asserted that the appellants participated in the recruitment process without challenging these terms, and later sought to expand the scope of eligibility.

They contended that the appellants’ interpretation of "degree" contradicted the clear language of the advertisement. Since their qualifications did not match the specified criteria, the High Court's decision was justified. The respondents urged the Supreme Court not to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench.

The Supreme Court observed that the appellants had applied for the posts of Food Safety Officers (FSO) with full disclosure of their Master’s degrees in Microbiology, Food Science, and Technology subjects.

The Court noted that "there was no ambiguity or misrepresentation by the appellants regarding their educational qualification at the time of applying in the subject recruitment process." Despite this, the recruiting authority initially accepted their applications and allowed them to proceed through the selection process, only to later disqualify them at the interview stage.

Examining the relevant statutory provisions, the Court stated that "the appointment of a FSO is to be made by the Commissioner of Food Safety, and the candidates should be having the qualification 'prescribed by the Central Government for such post.'" The Court emphasized that the power to prescribe educational qualifications for FSO posts lies exclusively with the Central Government, as outlined in Section 91(2)(b) of the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSS Act).

It further clarified that "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." The State Government’s role, as per Section 94 of the FSS Act, is limited to framing rules for carrying out assigned functions, not altering educational qualifications.

The Court reviewed the 2011 Food Safety and Standards Rules, which listed the required qualifications for FSO positions. It specifically analyzed Clause 2.1.3, which recognizes a "degree in Food Technology, Dairy Technology, Biotechnology, Oil Technology, Agricultural Science, Veterinary Sciences, Biochemistry, Microbiology, a Master’s Degree in Chemistry, or a degree in Medicine from a recognized University."

In interpreting the term ‘degree,’ the Court referred to Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, which defines ‘degree’ as encompassing "Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Doctorate Degree." The Court held that "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."

Addressing the respondent’s reasoning for disqualification, the Court stated 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, other than Chemistry, as being a valid qualification."

The Court ruled that requiring a Master’s degree only in Chemistry while limiting other disciplines to undergraduate degrees was "totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional." It held that "if a candidate has taken college education in the subjects of Food Technology, 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."

To further support its conclusion, the Court noted that the Central Government had amended the Food Safety and Standards Rules in 2022, explicitly recognizing Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees in relevant subjects as valid qualifications for FSO posts.

Ultimately, the Court held that "the appellants, who possessed post-graduate degrees in subjects covered under Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules, were definitely and unquestionably qualified for the post of FSO under the subject advertisement." Referring to its earlier decision in Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2015), the Court found the case to be fully applicable to the present dispute.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the Jharkhand High Court’s Division Bench and Single Bench, declaring the appellants unqualified were set aside.

The request to appear in the 2023 recruitment interview was denied as they had not applied.

If 2016 vacancies were unavailable, supernumerary posts were to be created, and appellants were allowed to re-enter at the interview stage. If successful, they were to be appointed from the 2016 select list date but placed below the last selected candidate.

Back wages were denied, but notional service benefits were granted.

All pending applications were disposed of.