Shiva Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3386 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

       WRIT PETITION NO.6901 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
                        C/W
       WRIT PETITION NO.13528 OF 2020 (S-KSAT)

IN WRIT PETITION NO.6901 OF 2021


BETWEEN:


H.N. SATHISH
S/O LATE NEELA SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
FOOD SAFETY OFFICER AND INCHARGE
DESIGNATED OFFICER, MYSORE
R/AT HANAGODU VILLAGE & POST
HUNSUR POST
MYSORE DISTRICT - 20.
                                      ....PETITIONER

(BY SMT. A. MANJULA, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO
       GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
       HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE
       VIKASA SOUDHA
       DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                             2




2.    THE COMMISSIONER FOR
      FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD AUTHORITY
      COMMISSIONER FOR HEALTH AND
      FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
      3RD FLOOR IPP BUILDING
      ANAND RAO CIRCLE
      BENGALURU - 560 009.
                                   ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO        (A) SET-ASIDE THE
APPLICATION    NO.800/2017    KARNATAKA    ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED:02.11.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE - A (B)
CALL FOR THE RECORDS APPLICATION NO.800/2017 KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (C) GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDERS.

IN WRIT PETITION NO.13528 OF 2020


BETWEEN:
SHIVA KUMAR
S/O LATE H. HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
HUBLI-DHARWAD MAHANAGARA PALIKE
(AREA), HUBLI-DHRAWA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA TOWN
DOOR NO.107
CHITRADURGA DIST - 570 002.
                                         ....PETITIONER

(BY SMT. A. MANJULA, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY TO
       GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
       HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE
       VIKASA SOUDHA
       DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                             3




2.   THE COMMISSIONER FOR
     FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD AUTHORITY
     COMMISSIONER FOR HEALTH AND
     FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
     3RD FLOOR IPP BUILDING
     ANAND RAO CIRCLE
     BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.    DR. DEEPAK KUMAR SUKKE
      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
      S/O LATE NAGENDRA SUKKE
      WORKING AS DESIGNATED OFFICER
      OF FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARD
      HUBLI-DHARWAD MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      P.B. ROAD, KIMS CAMPUS
      HUBLI - 580 021.
                                         ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHILPA S GOGI, HCGP;
    SRI. V.R. SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
APPLICATION    NO.802/2017    KARNATAKA    ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED:02.11.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A CALL
FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.802/2017 KARNATAKA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, M.G.S.KAMAL, J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioners

seeking to set aside a common order dated 02.11.2020

passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in

Application Nos.800/2017 and 802/2017 along with

other connected matters, in and by which, the Tribunal

dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners

challenging the notification dated 24.01.2017 issued by

the 2nd respondent appointing 36 district level officers as

designated officers.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they joined

Karnataka Food Safety and Standards Department under

the Health and Family Welfare Services initially as Food

Inspectors by way of direct recruitment in the year

2003. That the 2nd Respondent had issued notification

dated 30.07.2011 appointing the petitioners as 'Food

Safety Officers' for implementation of the Food Safety

and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act').

3. That the 1st Respondent had placed some Senior

Medical Officers as in-charge Designated Officers in the

district to implement the Act. Thereafter, by a

notification dated 20.06.2014, the 1st Respondent had

withdrawn the said notification and had directed them to

work as Health Officers at the places mentioned opposite

to their names in the said notification. Aggrieved by the

same, Medical Officers had filed applications before the

Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application

No.5253/2014 c/w. Application Nos.5036-5055/2014

which were dismissed as per order dated 15.12.2014.

Aggrieved by the same, writ petitions were filed in

W.P.Nos.60255-60265/2014 (S-KAT) before this Court

which were also dismissed by order dated 22.01.2015.

4. Thereafter, by notification dated 08.07.2014 and

28.09.2015, the 2nd Respondent appointed the

petitioners as Designated Officers on Additional Charge.

5. That the 1st Respondent for the first time framed

cadre and recruitment rules, viz., the Health and Family

Welfare Service (Food Safety and Standard Department)

(Recruitment) Rules, 2015 with effect from 05.01.2017.

The said rules provide mode of filling up of post of

designated officers, i.e., 50% by way of direct

recruitment, 50% by way of promotion from cadre of

Senior Food Safety Officer and that the rules do not

permit any other mode of appointment to the post of

designated officer.

6. That yet again, the 2nd respondent issued

notification dated 24.01.2017 appointing Medical

Officers to the post of Designated Officers.

7. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners and others

filed applications before the Karnataka State Appellate

Tribunal seeking quash of the said notification dated

24.01.2017 on the grounds inter alia that the said order

appointing 36 district level officers as Designated

Officers was contrary to rules and same was in contempt

of the earlier orders passed in Application Nos.5036-

5055/2014 and 5253/2014 and in the writ petitions in

W.P.Nos.60255-60265/2015 (S-KAT).

8. The Tribunal, by its common order dated

02.11.2020, dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating

the grounds urged in the writ petitions submits that the

issuance of notification dated 24.01.2017 appointing 36

district level officers as Designated Officers was contrary

to the rules providing for filling up of the post of

Designated Officers, i.e., 50% by direct recruitment and

50% by promotion from the cadre of Food Safety

Officer. She further submits that the said notification is

also against the Judgment passed by this Court in the

Writ Petition Nos.60255-60265/2014 dated 22.01.2015.

She submits that the Tribunal has not taken this aspect

of the matter while dismissing the Applications. Hence,

seeks for allowing of the petitions.

10. Smt.Shilpa S.Gogi, learned HCGP submits that

the notification dated 24.01.2017 was issued in the

public interest considering the less number of

enforcement authorities working at the field level. She

also submits that the said order was only an adhoc and

giving additional charge of designated officers till

implementation of rules and regulations for better

administration. She further submits that the

Government has taken a stand not to appoint Medical

Officers from the clinical side as Designated Officers and

posted only Public Health Medical Officers in the interest

of public health. That placing the Public Health Medical

Officers on additional charge would not prejudice the

Public Health. She further submits that the interest of

the petitioners would not get affected in any manner

whatsoever. As such the order passed by the Tribunal

does not warrant any interference. Hence, seeks for

dismissal of the petitions.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused

the records.

12. A perusal of the notification dated 24.01.2017

produced at Annexure-A12 issued by the respondents

appointing 32 officers in different cadres of Health

Department with additional charge of Designated

Officers was on adhoc basis in the public interest as

sufficient staff was not available. The said notification

also clarifies that Cadre and Recruitment Rules have

already been framed providing mode and method of

recruitment which would take some time for its complete

implementation and in the mean while, in order to meet

the requirement, this adhoc arrangement has been

made.

13. The Tribunal on consideration of the grounds

urged by the applicants and also taking into

consideration the objections of the respondents and also

taking note of its earlier order dated 15.12.2014 passed

in Application No.5253/2014 c/w.Application No.5036-

5055/2014 and the order dated 22.01.2015 passed by

this Court in W.P.Nos.60255-20265/2014 (S-KAT), has

held that the Government had not erred in issuing the

impugned notification dated 24.01.2017 and the same

was in the public interest. It further noted the said

order was an adhoc arrangement by the Government till

implementation of Cadre and Recruitment Rules. It has

also taken note of the fact that the status of the

petitioners, their designations, their salary including

their promotion aspect are not affected by the aforesaid

notification and as such, dismissed the application being

devoid of merits.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the matter and since the order in

question not having any adverse affect on the

designation, the salary including the promotional aspects

of the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the said

order is an adhoc arrangement, no infirmity or illegality

can be found in the order passed by the Tribunal,

warranting any interference.

15. However, this Court, by its order dated

13.07.2021, while staying the operation of the

impugned notification dated 24.01.2017 had observed

that the order on record though provides that the

posting is being made temporarily, but the temporary

phase has not ended till 2021 and that no statutory

provisions of law has been pointed out by State making

such postings. While taking note of framing of

Recruitment Rules, 2015 by the Government, this Court

made it clear that the State shall be free to fill up a post

in accordance with the statutory provisions as contained

under the Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006 read

with rules framed thereunder and the recruitment rules

governing the field. In view of the above order, this

Court hopes that the State Government would

endeavour to fill up the post strictly in accordance with

the act and the rules made thereunder as admittedly the

appointments are only on adhoc basis.

16. Though writ petitions lack merit warranting

interference with the order passed by the Tribunal, the

same are disposed of with the above observations.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

bnv