SANT LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts, as given in the petition, may briefly be stated thus:

(2.) The petitioners, who have more than one year's experience as qualified Sanitary Inspectors and have received more than three months' training in Food Inspection and Sampling Work in the recognised laboratories, are working as Sanitary Inspectors and are posted as such at different places in the State of Haryana. It is alleged that the Haryana Government advertised one post of Government Food Inspector in the Health Department in the pay scale of Rs. 140-350 and, according to the advertisement (annexure 'A' to the petition), only those Sanitary Inspectors who were graduates, had experience of one year and had received at least three months' training in Food Inspection and Sampling Work in any of the laboratories mentioned under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), were eligible for appointment to the post of Food Inspector. The petitioners, who are working as Sanitary Inspector, are not graduates and in view of the advertisement were not eligible to apply for the post of Food Inspector.

(3.) It is further averred that the post of Food Inspector is a statutory post and is governed by the provisions of the Act and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), that under the provisions of the Act and the Rules the petitioners fulfilled the qualifications for being considered for appointment to the post of Food Inspector and that the State of Haryana had no authority in law to change or alter the qualifications for the post of Food Inspector by way of executive instructions. From the allegations in the petition it transpires that on the basis of the aforesaid advertisement respondents Nos. 4 to 7 were selected for appointment as Food Inspectors with the result that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement, dated 7th February, 1973, and the selection of respondents Nos. 4 to 7, made in response to the said advertisement.