(1.) This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad dated 28/3/1995 made in OA No. 81344 of 1990. It is the case of the petitioner that he had the requisite qualification for promotion as a Senior Scientific Officer. But he was unduly denied of his right for consideration for promotion from Junior Scientific Officer. Mr. L. N. Rao, the learned counsel, contends that Rule 4 (b) of the A. P. Institute of Preventive Medicine Service Ad Hoc Rules to the post of Chief Public Analyst, Senior and Junior Scientific Officers, issued in GOMs No. 219 Health, Medical and Family Welfare, dated 26/3/1987 is ultra vires the power. Once the petitioner acquired postgraduate qualification, the insistence of 5 years' service after the acquisitionof the post-graduation is not warranted. In support thereof, he placed reliance on a judgment of this court in Sheshrao Jangluji Bagde v. Bhaiyya.
(2.) Rule 4 (b) reads thus: "must have not less than 5 years' experience as Postgraduate in the analysis of Food under the control of Chief Public Analyst/government Analyst who is appointed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. "
(3.) In view of that mandatory rule that the candidate must have not less than 5 years' experience as postgraduate in the analysis of food, the intendment of the rule is manifested that after acquiring post-graduation, one must necessarily have not less than 5 years' experience in the analysis of food. It would be relevant to mention that when the analysis of food for adulteration is to be made the Senior Scientific Officer is required to counter-test the report of the analyst sent in that behalf, the rule appears to have intended that he must have expert knowledge after acquiring post-graduation and minimum period of not less than 5 years' experience has been prescribed and insisted under the rule. The words "not less than" furnish the legislative intention of mandatory character of 5 years' minimum experience after getting post-graduation. Therefore, it being the legislative policy, it cannot be said that the rule is ultra vires or arbitrary.