RAMESHWAR DASS CHOTTEY LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 144 of 1968, 139/1967,64/1968, 105/1968, 347/1968. 356/1968, 33/1969 and 1543/1967. I will first take up Civil Writ No. 144 of 1968 and deal also with the common points that arise in all the petitions.

(2.) The four petitioners stand indicted in the trial Court for offences against Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereafter referred to as the said Act.). Two complaints under section 7 read with section 16 of the said Act have been filed against them, one against petitioner Narendra Kurnar and Jiwan Lal and other against petitioners Messrs Rameshwar Das Chhotey Lal "through partner Shyam Sunder" and Shyam Sunder petitioners. In the first of the aforementioned two complaints, the petitioners have been charged with storing adulterated Aniseed (Saunf) for sale. The adulteration according to the public analyst's report was due to 0 -47 per cent excess in total ash per cent 1 -5 def. in volatile oil per cent and also due to infested seeds to the extent of 01 -62. per cent." The second complaint is for storing adulterated pepper (white) for sale. The public annalyst in his report describes the sample of pepper as adulterated "'due to 1 -87 excess in light berries per cent." The prayer in the petition is, inter alia, for quashing the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. Mr. K. L. Gosain, the learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions:

(3.) As to the Public Analyst, the alleged disqualifications have been set out in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the petition. Mr. Gosain, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Shri Sudhamoy Roy was appointed as a Public Analyst by Notification dated July 30, 1966; that Fundamental Rule 10 provides that "except as as provided by this rule no person may be appointed in India to a post in Government service without a medical certificate of health which must be affixed to his first pay bill. A Local Government may make rules prescribing the form in which medical certificates should be prepared and the particular medical or other officers by whom they should be signed. It may, in individual cases, dispense with the production of certificate and may by general order exempt any specified class of Government servants from the operation of this rule," that medical certificate of health was, therefore, a pre-requisite to his appointment which could not have been granted in the case of the Public Analyst, he being medically disqualified; and that even if the Public Analyst be treated as an employee of the Municipal Corporation, Fundamental Rule 10 will still apply because the employees of Delhi Municipal Corporation are governed by Fundamental Rules including the rules of recruitjent by virtue of the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service Regulations, 1959 framed by the Government of India in exercise of of the powers conferred by clauses (a) and (e) of sub-section (a) of section 98 read with sub-section (1) of section 480 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. To show that the Public Analyst was not medically fit, Mr. Gosain relied on a Government of India publication, 1960 Edition ''A Hand Book on Medical Examination". Appendix I to the said book contains regulations as to the physical examination of candidates for addmission into the technical and Non-technical services Class I and Class II (Gazetted) under the Government of India except posts of Assistant Aerodrome Officers in the Civil Axiation Department and Defence services personnel. Mote 7(d) at page 52 reads :