1. These three Special Appeals take exception to the
1. Kuldeep Chaudhary & Ors.v. RPSC Girdharee Ram & 06.11.2023
& Ors.; Ors. v. RPSC & Anr.;
S.B CWP No.
2. Sakshi Jain & Ors. v. RPSC & Ors; -do- 06.11.2023
3. Prem Chand Sharma & Anr. v. Prem Chand Sharma 24.07.2025
State of Rajasthan & Anr. & Anr. v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. ;
S.B. CWP No.
Considering the commonality of the issues and the
identicalness of impeachments, with the consent of Learned
Counsel for the parties, arguments were advanced in an analogous
hearing and the present adjudication would answer the surging
debate. Also as the facts involved in the three appeals had fringe
variations, the facts arising out of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
No.790/2024 are being taken as lead case.
2. Vide Judgment dated 06.11.2023, the Learned Single
Judge has quashed the "Note" appended to the advertisement
dated 21.10.2022 with liberty to the State Authorities to conduct
the recruitment for the post of Food Safety Officer (hereinafter
referred to as "FSO") strictly in accordance with the Food Safety
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (6 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
and Standards Rules of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules of 2011") and with the direction that the condition of
possessing the essential qualification including training at the
requisite date shall be adhered to.
3. The appellants in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
Nos.790/2024 and 1048/2023 are the candidates who claim to
have been selected after participating in the selection process but
were not impleaded as respondents in the writ petition and hence,
have preferred the present appeals along with applications seeking
leave to appeal which were allowed.
4. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1061/2025 has been
preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 24.07.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.13770/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the stay application. In the said writ petition, challenge
was laid to the "Note" as appended to the clause providing the
required qualification in the earlier advertisement dated
05.08.2019 only to take the benefit of the judgment dated
06.11.2023, however, on the sole count of delay and laches, the
interim relief was declined and thus, being aggrieved by the
rejection of stay application, the present appeal has been filed.
FACTS IN BRIEF :
5.1. An advertisement dated 21.10.2022 was issued by
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) inviting online
applications for 200 posts of FSO on the requisition of the
respondent State. As per the scheme of recruitment/selection
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (7 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
process, the final merit list of the successful candidates was to be
prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in the written
examination which was held on 27.06.2023 and thereafter, the
RPSC was required to send recommendation of successful
candidates to the respondent State for their appointment in terms
of the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006"). The relevant
qualification clause as mentioned in the advertisement dated
21.10.2022 reads as under :-
"QUALIFICATION: (i) A degree in Food Technology or
Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology
or Agricultural Science or Veterinary Sciences or Bio-
Chemistry or Microbiology or Master's Degree in
Chemistry or degree in Medicine from a recognized
University or any other equivalent/recognized
qualification notified by the Central Government; and
(ii) has successfully completed training as
specified by the Food Authority in a recognized
institute or institution approved for the purpose.
(Note: There is no requirement for training
prior to selection. This training shall be provided
to the selected candidates during probation
period.)"
5.2. The aforesaid "Note" appended to the qualification
clause became the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition,
wherein it was contended by the writ petitioners that relaxing the
training criteria and allowing the training to be undertaken during
the probation period was in contravention of Rule 2.1.3 of the
Rules of 2011.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (8 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
5.3. It is a matter of record that during the pendency of the
writ petition, the appellants participated in the recruitment
process and appeared in the written examination held on
27.06.2023.
5.4. The impugned judgment was passed on 06.11.2023
after which, the respondent authority vide its communication
dated 26.12.2023 required the RPSC to select the candidates and
forward the list enabling it to impart required training so that the
appointments can be done. In pursuance of the said directions, a
provisional list of selected candidates was sent by the RPSC on
20.02.2024 and thereafter the final list of successful candidates
was issued on 10.06.2024 which was forwarded by RPSC to
Commissioner of Food Safety and Drug Control vide
communication dated 20.06.2024.
5.5. It is in these circumstances that the present appellants
being successful candidates in the recruitment process preferred
the present appeal assailing the judgment dated 06.11.2023 along
with an application seeking leave to appeal. Leave was granted on
21.08.2024 and further vide order dated 28.08.2024, this Court
directed not to finalise the process of selection and to maintain
status quo by all the parties.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS :
[IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.790/2024 and
1048/2023]
6.1. Sh. Rajesh Joshi Learned Senior Counsel along with Mr.
Rajat Arora representing the selected candidates - Appellants
submitted that the impugned order is not at all sustainable as the
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (9 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
qualification mentioned in the advertisement dated 21.10.2022 is
very much in accordance with the provisions of Section 37 of the
Act of 2006 read with Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 and thus,
there was no occasion for any interference, much less to quash
the note appended to the advertisement.
6.2. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the writ petition
was filed without impleading, both the Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as "FSSAI") which is
the apex regulatory and statutory body under the Act of 2006 and
the authority empowered to impart training, as well as, the
present appellants who are necessary parties and thus, solely on
the ground of non-joinder of necessary and proper parties, the
writ petition ought to have been dismissed.
6.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that FSSAI
vide its clarification dated 03.10.2018 has duly clarified that the
education qualifications mentioned in Rule 2.1.3.1(i) and (ii) of the
Rules of 2011 are mandatory for recruitment of FSO, however
successful completion of training as specified in Rule 2.1.3.1(iii) of
the Rules of 2011 is mandatory before notifying such selected
officers as FSO. The said clarification further mentions that FSSAI
has developed a training module for FSO which provides for
induction training and even the list of empanelled training
institutions for imparting such training to FSOs at the expenditure
of FSSAI has been duly shared with State/Union Territories. In
furtherance to the same, it was submitted that the training as
required under the Rules is in the nature of induction training and
can be imparted only in terms of the training manual and that too,
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (10 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
at the expense of the Government and is not a training which is
otherwise available to any private individual.
6.4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that by
quashing the note appended to the qualification clause in the
advertisement, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the
difference between "appointment" and "selection" and has
virtually ousted the appellants from the selection process. Learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that the interpretation as taken
by the learned Single Judge will lead to a precarious situation
wherein no appointment on the post of FSO will ever take place
which can never be the intent of the Legislature and thus, the
findings as recorded by the learned Single Judge deserves to be
set aside.
6.5. Learned Senior Counsel finally submitted that the writ
petitioners having participated in the selection process on the
basis of the advertisement dated 21.10.2022, now cannot assail
the very validity of the advertisement and being estopped, the
writ petition itself ought to have been dismissed. Thus, it was
prayed that the impugned judgment dated 06.11.2023 be set
aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT STATE :
7.1. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Advocate and
Advocate General assisted by Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat
supported the stand of the appellants to advance the contention
that the selection process was rightly carried out and there was no
occasion for the learned Single Judge to interfere in the process.
7.2. Learned Advocate General submitted that before the
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (11 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
Act of 2006, Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 1954") and Prevention of Food
Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of
1955") held the field and provided for appointment of Food
Inspectors and their qualifications. Accordingly, Rajasthan Medical
and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred
to as "the Rules of 1965") provided for the post of Food
Inspectors and prescribed qualifications in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 1954 and the Rules of 1955. The Act of
2006 replaced Food Inspectors by FSOs and while Section 37 of
Act of 2006 provides for appointment of FSO, Rules of 2011
provides for the required qualification of FSO.
7.3. It was contended that Section 37 specifically provided
that the appointment of FSO would be made by Commissioner of
Food Safety by issuing a notification in this regard of persons
having the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government.
Furthermore, as Section 91(1)(b) of the Act of 2006 empowers
the Central Government to make Rules as to the qualifications of
FSO, Rule 2.1.3 of Rules of 2011 prescribed the said qualification
which specifically mentions that FSO shall be a whole time officer
and shall on the date on which he is so appointed, possess the
requisite qualifications. Thus, the Legislature was very specific
that the qualifications so required should be on the date on which
the notification of appointment is to be issued and not any date
earlier.
7.4. Learned Advocate General further submitted that the
Rules of 1965 were amended in the year 2018 to provide for
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (12 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
appointment of FSOs in place of Food Inspectors and to prescribe
the qualifications thereof, which are exactly the same as provided
in Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011. Thus, the said amendment
made in the Rules of 1965 has to be considered along with the
provisions of the Act of 2006 and the Rules of 2011.
7.5. Learned Advocate General specifically submitted that
the training mentioned in Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 is the
training specified by FSSAI and the Food Authority has been
defined in Section 3(1)(m) of the Act of 2006 as per which, Food
Authority means an authority established under Section 4 of the
Act of 2006. The said very Food Authority approved the training
policy on 26.05.2023 and based on which, 'Food Safety Training
Manual' was framed for training of FSO. In furtherance to the said
submission, it was argued that the training as mentioned in Rule
2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 refers to an induction training as
provided in clauses 8 and 9 of the Training Manual and thus, the
interpretation to the word 'training' as given by the Learned Single
Judge lies in teeth with the intent of the Act of 2006 read with
Rules of 2011 and consequently, the impugned judgment deserves
to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
[IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.790/2024 and
1048/2023] and
APPELLANTS
[IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1061/2025]
8.1. E-Converso, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vikas Balia
assisted by Mr.Madhav Vyas and Mr.Devi Singh Rathore appearing
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (13 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
on behalf of the Writ petitioners-respondents submitted that the
entire exercise of the selection process undertaken by the
respondent authorities is in violation of the specific rules and thus,
no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the learned
Single Judge.
8.2. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the note
appended to qualifications in the advertisement by no stretch of
imagination can dilute or alter the qualifications as stipulated in
the Rules and thus, on the face of it, the said note is palpably
erroneous as an eligibility criteria cannot be done away with by
appending a note to the qualification. It is further submitted that
once the qualification is two fold and provides for education
qualification along with training in a mandatory form, it was not
open for the respondents to relax the same as the procedure of
recruitment is governed by the Rules of 1965 and relaxation is
permissible only in the manner and extent provided in Rules 11
and 19 of the Rules of 1965. It was further submitted that even as
per the amendment made to the Rules in the year 2018, no such
provision has been added that the training is not an eligibility
criteria for selection. Rather, the amended recruitment Rules
provide that a candidate for being recruited must be possessed of
the eligibility criteria which not only means the educational
qualification, but also successful completion of training.
8.3. It was also submitted by the Learned Senior Counsel
that the training is very much available in the open market and
the stand as taken by the state that training is not available in the
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (14 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
open market and can be given only to the officers after being
selected, is incorrect.
8.4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that FSSAI
has no authority to issue any clarification which runs contrary to
the Rules and the communication, such as the clarification dated
03.10.2018, cannot override the statutory provisions.
8.5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the
Rules of 1965 (as amended in 2018) is the governing law for the
present recruitment process and the said Rules nowhere provides
any power to relax the qualification. Accordingly, it was prayed
that the appeal be dismissed.
ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY
9. The contentious pleadings and the assiduous
submissions founded thereon have been duly assayed.
10. The dissension centers around as to what, in
terms of Section 37 of the Act of 2006 read with Rule 2.1.3
of Rules of 2011, is the requisite qualification and the
prescribed procedure for selection and appointment of
FSOs and what is meant by appointment of FSOs by
notification and possessing the qualification on the date on
which they are so appointed.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
11. Before venturing into the thick of the issue involved, it
would be justifiable to clear the deck qua the peripheral issues
regarding non-impleadment of necessary parties and estoppel. It
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (15 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
being a matter of record that the writ petition came to be decided
on 06.11.2023 and the final list of successful candidates was
declared only on 10.06.2024, which is the date after the passing
of the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge, the said
objection of non-impleadment of appellants lacks merit and
deserves to be rejected. However, in all fairness FSSAI, being the
statutory body with respect to FSO, ought to have been joined as
respondent in the Writ Petition.
12. Further, on the issue of estoppel, it is worth noting that
not only the private respondents/writ petitioners filled and
submitted their forms in pursuance to the advertisement dated
21.10.2022, but even underwent the training as provided by
FSSAI and only after successful completion of the same, their
appointments were notified as FSOs. Thus, having enjoyed the
fruits of the very same procedure for their own appointment by
notification, it was not open for them to assail the very same
process.
13. As the radix of contentious debate is patently traceable
to the various provisions of law, it would be apposite to refer and
reproduce the following relevant provisions:-
A. RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE FOOD SAFETY AND
STANDARDS ACT 2006
3(1)(m) ―Food Authority means the Food Safety
and Standards Authority of India established under
section 4;
3(1)(t) ―Food Safety Officer means an officer
appointed under Section 37 ;
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (16 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
4. Establishment of Food Safety and Standards
Authority of India.- (1) The Central Government
shall, by notification, establish a body to be known as
the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India to
exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the
functions assigned to, it under this Act.
(2) The Food Authority shall be a body corporate by
the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and
a common seal with power to acquire, hold and
dispose of property, both movable and immovable,
and to contract and shall, by the said name, sue or
be sued.
(3) The head office of the Food Authority shall be at
Delhi.
(4) The Food Authority may establish its offices at
any other place in India.
37. Food Safety Officer.-(1) The Commissioner of
Food Safety shall, by notification, appoint such
persons as he thinks fit, having the qualifications
prescribed by the Central Government, as Food
Safety Officers for such local areas as he may assign
to them for the purpose of performing functions
under this Act and the rules and regulations made
thereunder.
(2) The State Government may authorise any officer
of the State Government having the qualifications
prescribed under sub-section (1) to perform the
functions of a Food Safety Officer within a specified
jurisdiction.
91. Power of Central Government to make
rules.- (1) The Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules may
provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(a) salary, terms and conditions of service of
Chairperson and Members other than ex officio
Members under sub-section (2) and the manner of
subscribing to an oath of office and secrecy under
sub-section (3) of section 7;
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (17 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
(b) qualifications of Food Safety Officer under
sub-section (1) of section 37;
B. RELEVANT RULES OF THE FOOD SAFETY AND
STANDARDS RULES, 2011
2.1.3: Food Safety Officer
1. Qualification. Food Safety Officer shall be a whole
time officer and shall on the date on which he is so
appointed, possesses the following-
(i) a degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology
or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or
Agricultural Science or Veterinary Sciences or
Bio-Chemistry or Microbiology or Masters Degree
in Chemistry or degree in medicine from a
recognized University, or
(ii) any other equivalent/recognized qualification
notified by the Central Government, and
(iii) has successfully completed training as
specified by the Food Authority in a
recognized institute or Institution approved
for the purpose:
Provided that no person who has any financial interest
in the manufacture, import or sale of any article of
food shall be appointed to be a Food Safety Officer
under this rule.
2. On the date of commencement of these rules, a
person who has already been appointed as a Food
Inspector under the provisions of Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954, may perform the duties of the
Food Safety Officer if notified by the State/Central
Government if the officer fulfils such other conditions
as may be prescribed for the post of Food Safety
Officer by the State Government.
3. State Government may, in cases where a Medical
Officer of health administration of local area has been
performing the function of food Inspector under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, assign the
powers and duties of Food Safety Officer to such
Medical Officer-in-charge of health administration of
that area:
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (18 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
Provided further that the persons appointed under
clauses 2 and 3 above. shall undergo a specialized
training laid down by the Food Authority within a
period of five years from the commencement of these
rules.
C. RELEVANT CLAUSES OF FOOD SAFETY TRAINING
MANUAL :
"Preamble : 1. The Food Safety and Standards Act,
2006 envisages ensuring availability of safe and
wholesome food in the country. It also puts in place a
well-defined regulatory framework to ensure
compliance to the Act and Rules and Regulations
made thereunder. A well trained and qualified
regulatory workforce is essential for uniform and
consistent application of the Act across the country.
The Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 also
provide for training of Designated Officers and
Food Safety Officers by FSSAI.
2. In 2016, Food Safety & Standard Authority of
India designed a Training Policy for Food Safety
Regulatory Officials. The Training policy
provided for Induction as well as refresher
training to regulatory officers. It also envisaged
developing a pool of Trainers and for this purpose
provided for Training of Trainers programme. The
Training Policy was considered by the Central
Advisory Committee in its 17th meeting and
subsequently approved by Food Authority in the
21st Authority Meeting held on 26 May, 2016.
3. Based on the Training Policy, a Food Safety
Training Manual was framed for training of
regulatory officers. FSSAI has since been
conducting training in States/UTs accordingly. On the
basis of lessons learnt and developments taking place
in the food domain, this training Manual has been
revised so as to keep pace with the developments and
need for effective capacity building of regulatory
officers. This revised Food Safety Training Manual
streamlines the ToT programmes and lends more
flexibility and content to regulatory training. In the
Induction training, the subjects covered in the Manual
for Food Safety Officers have also been mapped.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (19 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
4. Food Safety Officer (FSO) - As per Section
37 of the FSS Act, 2006, FSOs will be appointed
by the Commissioner of Food Safety by
notification. Further, as per Rule 2.1.3 of FSS
Rules, 2011, the FSO will successfully complete
the training as specified by the Food Authority
in a recognized institute or institution approved
for the purpose. FSOs are the representatives of the
Food Authority at the ground level and interact
directly with the FBOs and thus are back bone of the
entire food safety compliance structure. They are
vested with regulatory powers and functions to
ensure regulatory compliance thereby ensuring food
safety and are required to carry out various
enforcement and surveillance activities. In order to
discharge their duties and functions under the FSS
Act, Rules and Regulations, they have to have good
knowledge and understanding of the regulatory
provisions like inspection procedure, sampling,
provisions related to licensing and registration,
packaging and labelling, standards and so on.
Considering the importance of role of FSO, the
training has been designed in an integrated
manner. It is proposed to have three types of
training for the FSOs viz (a) Induction Training,
(b) Refresher Training and (c) special/need
based training. FSOs will learn about the Concepts
of Food Safety, new provisions of the Act and Rules,
Standards and new approaches to monitoring the
Food Safety and have practical experience of ground
level working.
8. Clause 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 of Chapter 2 of the
Food Safety Standards Rules, 2011 provides for
training of DOs and FSOs. Accordingly, there will
the following training framework for them:
(a) Induction Training;
(b) Refresher Training; and
(c) Special/need based training.
9. Induction Training for FSOs
The Induction Training will be given to the
FSOs who are newly recruited/appointed or are
new to the service. Induction Training will for a
period of 40 (working) days. It will be in-depth,
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (20 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
comprehensive and will have the following
components (curriculum of the training is attached at
Annex 'A'):
(i) Classroom training - Classroom training will be
for 14 days and will be conducted at the institutes
empanelled by FSSAI across all the States/UTs or at
any other venue mutually agreed by FSSAI and State/
UT Government.
(ii) On the job training - On the job training will be
for 26 days. It has been divided in six parts and in
each part the training, FSOs will be attached with
various offices viz DOs, FBOs, Laboratories etc and
will get firsthand experience and will be able to
correlate the classroom learning's with the on the job
working.
(iii) Assessment - At the end Induction Training, an
assessment will be conducted. The assessment will be
in two parts as under:-
S.No. Description of Test Qualifying
marks
(a) Written test of 90 minutes with 100 multiple 60%
choice questions at the end of classroom
session. The question bank will be provided
by FSSAI.
(b) Each FSO will be attached to a DO who will 60%
be the guide during "on the job training".
FSO will submit the report to the DO who
will examine and evaluate the report out of
100 marks.
15. Training institute - FSSAI has empanelled 20
institutes across the country for conducting training.
The list of the empanelled institutes at attached at
Annexe 'G'. In addition to the training institutes,
training may be conducted at places with adequate
training facilities as may be decided by FSSAI."
D. RELEVANT RULES OF RAJASTHAN MEDICAL AND HEALTH
SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1965 (AS AMENDED IN
2018):
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (21 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
"11. Academic and Technical qualification and
experience.- A candidate for direct recruitment to a
post enumerated in the Schedule shall possess:-
(i) the qualifications given in column 4 of the
Schedule in addition to such experience as is
required therein;
(ii) Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri
Script and knowledge of Rajasthan culture.
Provided that the person who has appeared or is
appearing in the final year examination of the course
which is the requisite educational qualification for the
post as mentioned in the rules or schedule for direct
recruitment, shall be eligible to apply for the post but
he/she shall have to submit proof of having acquired
the requisite educational qualification to the
appropriate selection agency:-
(i) before appearing in the main examination, where
selection is made through two stages of written
examination and interview;
(ii) before appearing in interview where selection is
made through written examination and
interview;
(iii) before appearing in the written examination or
interview where selection is made through only
written examination or only interview, as the
case may be.
Column No.4 of Schedule-I of the Rules of 1965
(i) A degree in Food Technology or Dairy technology
or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture
Science or Veterinary Sciences or Bio-Chemistry or
Microbiology or Master's Degree in Chemistry or
Degree in Medicine from a recognized University, OR
any other equivalent/recognized qualification notified
by the Central Government; and (ii) has successfully
completed training as specified by the Food Authority
in a recognized institute or institution approved for
the purpose:
Provided that no person who has any financial
interest in the manufacture, import or sale of any
article of food shall be appointed to be a Food Safety
Officer under these rules."
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (22 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
14.1. A bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act of 2006 reveals
that the appointment on the post of FSO would be made by the
Commissioner of Food Safety by issuance of notification in this
regard. A plain and literal reading and understanding of the said
Section conveys that it is the date of notification which would be
the date of appointment of FSOs. As a matter of fact, no
interpretation is required to arrive at the said finding as the
Statute has specifically incorporated the words "by notification,
appoint such persons as he thinks fit", and thus, the word "by
notification" cannot be ignored. Further, Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of
2011 while prescribing the qualification specifically provides for
the words "on the date on which he is so appointed". Thus, the
word "so appointed" would necessarily mean the appointment by
way of notification and consequently, the possession of
qualification, both educational and successful completion of
training has to be seen on the date of the notification issued for
the appointment of FSO under Section 37 of Act of 2006. Further
Rule 2.1.3.1(iii) of the Rules of 2011 refers to the training which is
provided by Food Authority in a recognized institute or institution
approved for the purpose. Thus, the training as mentioned therein
cannot be any training other than the training as specified by the
Food Authority and that too in a recognised institute or institution
approved for the purpose.
14.2. It is a settled proposition of law that from the words of
law, there should be no departure and the Courts should go by
litera legis i.e. the letter of legislation. The maxim absoluta
sententia expositore non indigent means the plain words need no
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (23 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
explanation and thus, if the language of the Statute is clear and
unambiguous, the Court must give effect to it and has no right to
ignore or extend its operation solely to advent into the arena of
interpretation.
14.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagarajan
v. State of T.N.; (2025) 7 SCC 479 observed that:
"43. A canonical rule of statutory interpretation i.e. the
rule of literal construction, is that the words of a statute
should be read as it is and should be understood in their
natural and ordinary sense. A reference to the rule of
beneficial construction of a statute or any other rule of
statutory interpretation may be resorted to only if the
literal rule fails to provide suitable guidance or results in
absurdity."
Further, in Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank
Ltd.; (2022) 8 SCC 352, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that:
"65. It is well settled that the first and foremost
principle of interpretation of a statute is the rule of
literal interpretation, as held by this Court in Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P. [Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 2 SCC 1] ..... .
66. In Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. [Hiralal Rattanlal
v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 216]
"22. ... In construing a statutory provision, the first
and the foremost rule of construction is the literary
construction. All that we have to see at the very
outset is what does that provision say? If the
provision is unambiguous and if from that
provision, the legislative intent is clear, we need
not call into aid the other rules of construction of
statutes. The other rules of construction of statutes
are called into aid only when the legislative
intention is not clear."''
Thus, the duty of the Court of law is to simply take the
statute as it stands as it is a well-settled principle of interpretation
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (24 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the
legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended
to do.
14.4. It is also a settled position of law that no word in the
Statute can be ignored and every word has to be assigned a
meaning as has been settled in catena of cases. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nathi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta ; (2005) 2
SCC 271 observed as under :-
"14. It is equally well settled that in interpreting a
statute, effort should be made to give effect to each
and every word used by the legislature. The courts
always presume that the legislature inserted every
part thereof for a purpose and the legislative
intention is that every part of the statute should
have effect. A construction which attributes
redundancy to the legislature will not be accepted
except for compelling reasons such as obvious
drafting errors. (See State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay
Anand Maharaj [AIR 1963 SC 946 : (1963) 1 SCR
1] , Rananjaya Singh v. Baijnath Singh [AIR 1954
SC 749 : (1955) 1 SCR 671] , Kanai Lal Sur v.
Paramnidhi Sadhukhan [AIR 1957 SC 907 : 1958
SCR 360] , Nyadar Singh v. Union of India [(1988)
4 SCC 170 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 934 : (1988) 8 ATC
226 : AIR 1988 SC 1979] , J.K. Cotton Spg. and
Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [AIR 1961 SC
1170] and Ghanshyamdas v. CST [AIR 1964 SC 766
: (1964) 4 SCR 436] .)"
14.5. The Food Safety training manual in its Preamble so
also, in clauses 4, 8, 9 and 15 specifically refers to Section 37 of
the Act of 2006 and Rule 2.1.3 of Rules of 2011 and provides for
the manner and nature of training to be imparted to FSOs. A bare
perusal of the Preamble of the training manual reveals that the
training policy was designed by FSSAI for Food Safety Regulatory
Officials to be imparted at the stage of induction and also for
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (25 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
refreshing and special needs purposes. The training policy was
approved by Food Authority on 26.05.2016 and based on the
same, the Food Safety Training Manual was framed for training of
Regulatory officers and since then, FSSAI is conducting training in
State/Union Territories. Clause 4 of training manual while referring
to Section 37 of the Act of 2006 and Rule 2.1.3 of Rules of 2011
specifically provides that the training is designed in three types:-
a) Induction Training ;
b) Refresher Training ; and
c) Special Need based Training
and as per clauses 8 and 9, the induction training is imparted to
the FSOs who are newly recruited/appointed or are new to the
service. Thus, by a conjoint reading of the above provisions and
clauses, the only and solitary conclusion which can be arrived is
that the training as referred in Rule 2.1.3 is the induction training
as given to the FSOs in terms of clauses 8 and 9 of training
manual, which is only after their selection.
14.6. The Note appended to the qualification mentioned in
the advertisement neither alters nor modifies much less dilutes
the eligibility criteria and is very much in consonance with the
literal reading of Section 37 of the Act of 2006 read with Rule
2.1.3 of Rules of 2011. The first part of the note provides that
there is no requirement for training prior to selection which is very
much in accordance with the above provisions. The latter part of
the note, which provides that training shall be provided to the
selected candidates during probation period, merely refers to the
interregnum period after the selection but prior to appointment by
notification as FSO issued in terms of Section 37 of the Act of
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (26 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
2006 and thus, even the said condition nowhere transgresses into
any of the prescribed qualifications. As a matter of fact, the
provisions are plain and simple and even, no interpretation is
required other than a literal interpretation.
14.7. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that
after the selection of candidates based upon their educational
qualifications, they become eligible for undergoing the induction
training and only after successful completion of the said training,
the notification for the appointment as FSOs is issued as provided
under Section 37 of the Act of 2006. Any other interpretation of
above provision would not only be contrary to the literal
interpretation but would be defeating the very purpose for which
the said qualifications have been prescribed. The learned Single
Judge though referred to Section 37 of the Act of 2006 and Rule
2.1.3 of Rules of 2011, however, no credence was granted to the
manner in which appointment has been envisaged in Section 37 of
Act of 2006. The requisite date for possessing the essential
qualification including successful completion of training has to be
the date on which notification for appointment of FSO is issued.
14.8. The Learned Single Judge has grossly erred in holding
that Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 requires a candidate to
complete the necessary qualification of completing the training at
the time of selection as none of the provisions provides for the
same.
14.9. The Judgment in the case of Rajnish Sharma & Ors.
v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.12076/2018) decided on 15.01.2020 as referred by the
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (27 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
learned Single Judge nowhere required quashing of the note as it
merely advances the applicability of Section 37 of the Act of 2006.
Further the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Kumar v.
State of Rajasthan; (2018) 3 SCC 55 fails to support the writ
petitioners as no part of advertisement runs contrary to the
Statutory Rules.
14.10. Very recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v. The State of
Jharkhand and Others; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 595 has held
that the appointment of FSO is to be made by the Commissioner
of Food Safety and the candidates should be having such
qualification for the said post and the prescription of the
qualification for the said post is within the exclusive domain of
Central Government. Relevant extract of the said judgment reads
as under:
"23. A bare perusal of Section 37(1) ofthe FSS Act,
makes it clear 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."
(emphasis supplied)
24. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 37, the State
Government has been given the limited power to
appoint any other officer of the State Government,
having the qualification prescribed under Sub-Section
(1), to perform the functions of the FSO within a
specified jurisdiction.
25. The plain language of the statute makes it clear
that the prescription of qualification for the post of
FSO is within the exclusive domain of the Central
Government and the power to appoint is given to the
Commissioner of Food Safety.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (28 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
26. The language of Section 91(2)(b) of the FSS Act,
fortifies the said conclusion, that the power to
prescribe educational criterion for the post of FSO lies
exclusively with the Central Government. The heading
of the Section 91 is 'Power of Central Government to
make rules'. Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 91 refers
to the qualifications of the FSO under Sub-Section (1)
of Section 37. 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. Section 94 of the FSS Act, which talks
about the power of the State Government to make
rules is restricted in its operation and gives a limited
role to the State Government to frame rules for
carrying out the functions and duties assigned to the
State Government and the State Commissioner of
Food Safety under the FSS Act, the rules and the
regulations made thereunder. 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."
14.11. It is also coming from the record that even the writ
petitioners were required to undergo training after their
appointment and only after completion of the said training, their
notification for appointment as FSO was issued. Thus, having
undertaken the very same exercise and the process for their own
appointment, it is not open for the writ petitioners - respondents
to assail the validity of the said process.
14.12. Once it is established that the training mentioned in
Rule 2.1.3.1(iii) of the Rules of 2011 means the training as
imparted by FSSAI after selection and that too at its own expense,
the interpretation of the said qualification as made by the writ
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (29 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
petitioners-respondents would completely frustrate and defeat the
entire process and it is more than settled that no interpretation
which defeats the basic purpose of the Statute can be taken.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Vankani And Others
v. State of Gujarat And Others ; (2010) 4 SCC 301 has held
that the Courts have to avoid a construction of an enactment that
leads to an unworkable, inconsistent or impracticable results since
such a situation is unlikely to have been envisaged by the rule
making authority. The relevant extract from the said judgment
reads as under:
"43. It is a well-known rule of construction that the
provisions of a statute must be construed so as to
give them a sensible meaning. The legislature expects
the court to observe the maxim ut res magis valeat
quam pereat (it is better for a thing to have effect
than to be made void). The principle also means that
if the obvious intention of the statute gives rise to
obstacles in implementation, the court must do its
best to find ways of overcoming those obstacles, so
as to avoid absurd results. It is a well-settled principle
of interpretation of statutes that a construction should
not be put on a statutory provision which would lead
to manifest absurdity, futility, palpable injustice and
absurd inconvenience or anomaly.
44. In this connection reference may be made to the
judgment in R (Edison First Power Ltd.) v. Central
Valuation Officer [(2003) 4 All ER 209 : 2003 UKHL
20 (HL)] wherein Lord Millet said: (All ER pp. 116-17)
"116. ... The courts will presume that Parliament
did not intend a statute to have consequences
which are objectionable or undesirable; or
absurd; or unworkable or impracticable; or
merely inconvenient; or anomalous or illogical;
or futile or pointless.
117. But the strength of these presumptions
depends on the degree to which a particular
construction produces an unreasonable result.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (30 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
The more unreasonable a result, the less likely it
is that Parliament intended it...."
45. Reference may also be made to the judgment in
Andhra Bank v. B. Satyanarayana [(2004) 2 SCC
657 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 433] wherein this Court has
held: (SCC p. 662, para 14)
"14. A machinery provision, it is trite, must be
construed in such a manner so as to make it
workable having regard to the doctrine 'ut res
magis valeat quam pereat'."
46. In Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of
Assam [(1989) 3 SCC 709] this Court held as follows:
(SCC p. 754, para 118)
"118. The courts strongly lean against any
construction which tends to reduce a statute to
futility. The provision of a statute must be so
construed as to make it effective and operative,
on the principle 'ut res magis valeat quam
pereat'. It is, no doubt, true that if a statute is
absolutely vague and its language wholly
intractable and absolutely meaningless, the
statute could be declared void for vagueness.
This is not in judicial review by testing the law
for arbitrariness or unreasonableness under
Article 14; but what a court of construction,
dealing with the language of a statute, does in
order to ascertain from, and accord to, the
statute the meaning and purpose which the
legislature intended for it."
47. Reference may also be made to the decisions
in Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of
India [(1971) 1 SCC 85] , Union of India v. B.S.
Agarwal [(1997) 8 SCC 89 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 402]
and Paradise Printers v. UT of Chandigarh [(1988) 1
SCC 440].
48. The above legal principles clearly indicate that
the courts have to avoid a construction of an
enactment that leads to an unworkable, inconsistent
or impracticable results, since such a situation is
unlikely to have been envisaged by the rule-making
authority. The rule-making authority also expects rule
framed by it to be made workable and never
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (31 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
visualises absurd results. The decision taken by the
Government in deputing the non-graduates (1979-
1981 batch) to a two-year training course and
graduates (1980-1981 batch) to a one-year training
is in due compliance with Rule 10 of the 1969 Rules
and Rule 18 of the 1974 Rules and the seniority of
both the batches has been rightly settled vide Orders
dated 12-10-1982 and 5-3-1987 and the Government
has committed an error in unsettling the seniority
under its proceedings dated 29-9-1993.
14.13. The above principles have been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court very recently in the case of Municipal Corpn.,
Greater Mumbai v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2025)
3 SCC 183 and it has been held that any construction of a
provision which reduces a Statute to a futility or which defeats the
plain intention of the Legislature has to be avoided.
14.14. Thus, the emerged position is that if a selected candidate
fulfills the qualifications as prescribed in Rule 2.1.3.1(i) or (ii) of the
Rules of 2011, he will have to undergo a training as prescribed
under Rule 2.1.3.1(iii) of the Rules of 2011 and only after the
successful completion of such training, he will be notified by the
Commissioner as FSO by invoking the provisions of Section 37 of
the Act of 2006. The word 'so appointed' solely refers to the
appointment of FSO by way of notification in terms of Section 37 of
the Act of 2006.
CONCLUSION :
15. Thus, considering the :
(i) specific provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 2006, which
specifically requires the Commissioner to notify the appointment
of FSO ;
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46499-DB] (32 of 32) [SAW-790/2024]
(ii) Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 which requires for possessing
the requisite qualification on the date on which he is so
appointed ;
(iii) the Training Manual, which refers to Section 37 of the Act of
2006 and Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 and provides for an
induction training to the FSOs who are newly recruited ; and
(iv) clarification issued by the FSSAI dated 03.10.2018 ;
we are of the considered opinion that as per the literal reading of
the provisions, the requisite qualification for FSO has to be
evaluated on the date on which the notification for appointment as
FSO is issued and if the training is successfully completed at any
time prior to it, the same would be very much in compliance of the
provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 2006 and Rule 2.1.3 of Rules
of 2011.
16. Consequently, both the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)
Nos.790/2024 and 1048/2023 stands allowed and the impugned
judgment dated 06.11.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7650/2023 is set aside. Further, D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No.1061/2025 stands dismissed and the impugned order
dated 24.07.2025 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13770/2025
is upheld.
All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANUROOP SINGHI),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
S1-S3-SPhophaliya/-
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 04:22:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
