ASHISH PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 13-2-2008 as well as order dated 20-2-2008 by which their selection to the post of Food Inspector has been cancelled. In order to appreciate the petitioners' grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra. An advertisement was issued in the year 2007 for recruitment to the post of Food Inspector by the Public Service Commission. In response to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners appeared in the examination and were selected on the post of Food Inspector. However, by orders dated 13-2-2008 and 20-2-2008 they were informed that their selection was cancelled on the ground that they do not possess the requisite qualification which is prescribed in the advertisement as well as in Rule 8 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short the 'Rules') for appointment on the post of Food Inspector. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to Rule 8(c) of the Rules submitted that expression "Graduate in Engineering" includes the Degree in Agricultural Engineering as well. Learned counsel has invited attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya as well as the communication issued by Indian Council for Agricultural Research. It is urged that from the aforesaid documents it is evident that the Degree under the faculty of Agricultural Engineering is a part of Agricultural Sciences, and Agricultural Engineering is considered as one of the disciplines under the Agricultural Sciences. It is also covered under the Engineering subjects. It is further submitted that subject of agricultural is taught in 11 disciplines and, therefore, the action of respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners on the ground they do not have the qualification which is prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules is patently arbitrary. In support of his submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Chandrakala Trivedi vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 2012 3 SCC 129.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Government for respondents No. 1 and 2 has submitted that in the advertisement as well as in Rule 8(c) of the Rules, the expression "Graduate in Agricultural Engineering" has been used. It is further submitted that if Rule 8(c) of the Rules is read in its entirety it is apparent that the Bachelors' Degree in Agricultural Engineering is not included as qualification under Rule 8(c) of the Rules. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the Degree of Bachelor of Technology (Agricultural Engineering) has been notified by the Central Government as the equivalent qualification for the purpose of appointment as Food Inspector. It is further submitted that the employer is the best Judge with regard to the question of interpretation of the qualification prescribed for the post and the Court cannot interfere with the decision taken by the employer unless the same is shown to be per se arbitrary or irrational.