http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. RAMACHANDRA REDDY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/04/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, S.P. KURDUKAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.P. KURDUKAR, J.      Leave granted in SLP Nos. 524-25 of 1991.      These Civil  Appeals are  filed by  the  Government  of Andhra  Pradesh  and  Anr.,  challenging  the  legality  and correctness of  the orders  passed  by  the  Andhra  Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. There does not seem to be any dispute that the respondents herein were appointed on different dates  as Food  Inspectors under  Section 9(1)  of prevention of  Food Adulteration  Act, 1954  (for short  the ‘Act’). By way of an illustration we may reproduce  an order bearing No. G.O.Ms.No.162(L2) dated 12.3.1985 which reads as under:-           The   following   notification      will    be    published    in    an      Extraordinary issue  of the  Andhra      Pradesh Gazette dated 15.3.1985.            N O T I F I C A T I O N           In  exercise   of  the  powers      conferred  by  sub-section  (1)  of      Section 9 of the Prevention of Food      Adulteration Act. 1954 (Central Act      of 1954),  the Governor  of  Andhra      Pradesh  hereby  appoints  (1)  the      persons specified  in column (2) of      the Schedule  below to  be the Food      Inspectors, for the purposes of the      said Act,  and (2) directs that the      persons  aforesaid  shall  exercise      the powers  within the  local areas      specified  in   the   corresponding      entries in column (4) thereof". (2)  The Schedule contains the names of persons and the name of Local  Government/Local areas where they were posted. The respondents herein  filed separate  Representation Petitions bearing Nos.  3751/87, 1810/87,  8145/88 and  8084/88 before the Andhra  Pradesh Administrative  Tribunal. In  all  these Representation petitions  the grievance  of the  respondents was that  although they were appointed as Food Inspectors in terms of  the above quoted order yet they were not given the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

posting orders.  They further  pleaded that  they have  made several   representations to  the authorities  and the  last communication dated  13.2.1987 received  by them  was to the effect that inasmuch as the adhoc rules in this behalf  were not framed,  therefore. their postings could not be made. It is in  these circumstances  they challenged  the inaction of the appellants  and prayed  that they  be directed  to issue posting orders to them. (3)  The appellants  herein (who were respondents before the Tribunal)  in   their  counter  affidavit  denied  that  the respondents herein have got any right to seek posting orders merely because  they have  been appointed as Food Inspectors under the  Act. They  also denied  the existence of any such adhoc Rules.  It is  not disputed  that the draft Rules were framed and  they were then pending before the Government for its approval.  The claim of the respondents herein is devoid of any merit and the representation petitions be dismissed. (4)  The Andhra  Pradesh Administrative  Tribunal in  a very slipshod manner  disposed of  the Representation Petition 51 of 1987 as under:      "I see sufficient foundation in the      arguments of  the  learned  counsel      for  the   petitioners.  In   these      circumstances    there     is    no      alternative for me except to give a      direction  to  the  respondents  to      give  a   posting  to   these   six      petitioners with  immediate  effect      as the denial is baseless and there      is  exigency   in  the   matter  of      appointing   Food   Inspectors   as      reflects from  the counter  itself.      R.P. is  allowed  accordingly.  No.      costs". (5)  This order and other similar orders passed by the other Benches of  the Andhra  Pradesh Administrative  Tribunal  in other Representation  Petitions are  sought to be challenged in these  civil appeals.  Since the  controversy involved in all these  appeals is  identical, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. (6)  Shri G.  Prabhakar, learned  counsel appearing  for the State of  Andhra Pradesh  urged that  these respondents were junior analysts  institute of  Preventive  Medicine,  Public health labs  and Food (Health) Authority, Hyderabad and some were  working   in  the   non-technical  cadre.   All  these respondents are  science graduates.  At their  instance they were sent for training in food Inspection and sampling which they have  passed.  The  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  in exercise  of  its  power  under  Section  9(1)  of  the  Act appointed these  respondents to  be the  Food Inspectors for the purposes  of the  said Act.  Since they  were  appointed under the said Act they are not entitled to seek postings as Food Inspectors until the rules in that behalf were approved by the  State Government. Learned counsel fairly stated that these draft  rules have  now  been  approved  by  the  State Government vide  is order  dated 8.9.1994.  He further urged that these  respondents were  appointed  against  the  local areas mentioned   in the orders of their appointments. There are many  senior analysts and are eligible candidates in the department who  could be  considered and  appointed  to  the posts of  Food Inspectors.  The claims of the respondents as well as  the other eligible candidates will be considered in the light  of rules  which are  now approved  by  the  State Government. (7)  On Perusal  of the  appointment orders and the Schedule

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

attached thereto  it is clear that these respondents came to be appointed  as Food Inspectors under the Act at the places (local bodies)  where they  were working.  Therefore,  these appointments were  only for  the purposes of discharging the duties under  the Act.  If this  be so the respondents could not be said to have acquired any right to seek their posting orders inasmuch as at the time when they were  appointed, no adhoc rules  were framed.  The draft  rules were sent to the State Government  for its approval and the said approval was received on  8.9.1994. In  view of  this factual position in our opinion  the  Tribunal  has  committed  an  error  while issuing the  direction to  issue the  posting orders  on the assumption that  the respondents  were entitled  for getting posting orders  on the  basis of  adhoc rules. Incidently it may be  stated that  an identical  question arose before the said Tribunal  in Representation  Petition  No.  810/87  (M. Laxminarayana vs.  The  Director,  Institute  of  Preventive Medicine,   Public    Health   Laboratories,   Narayanaguda, Hyderabad and  Anr.) and  the Tribunal vide its reasoned and detailed order  dated  July  27,  1988  dismissed  the  said Representation Petition. (8)  In the  result the  appeals  are  allowed.  The  orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in R.P. Nos. 3751  of 1987 dated 10.4.1989. 8145 of 1988 and 8084 of 1988 dated  17.4.1989 and  1810 of  1987 dated 29.9.1989 are set aside  and consequently  all Representation Petitions to stand rejected. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.