B MUKALINGAM Vs. VUPPALA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA
LAWS(APH)-1992-9-7
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 15,1992

B.MUKALINGAM Appellant
VERSUS
VUPPALA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The Magistrate, while considering the evidence of the Food Inspector, found that he is not a competent person to act as a Food Inspector as he has not fulfilled the requisite qualification required under R. 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. It is against that the present appeal has been filed by the complainant, Sri Mukhalingam alleging that he is qualified person. Under the proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules, it is contended, he is entitled to continue as Food Inspector, as his original appointment was in the year 1966 as Sanitary Inspector; that by virtue of notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 313, dated 23-2-1956 all the Sanitary Inspectors are deemed to be the Food Inspectors for the purpose of provisions of this Act and that, therefore, he is competent to continue to act as the Food Inspector.
(2.)Sri Sadasiva Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, contended that mere fact that the appellant was working as Sanitary Inspector or that a notification has been issued declaring that all Sanitary Inspectors are deemed to be Food Inspectors, does not mean that he is a Food Inspector. According to him, in the light of proviso to R. 8, actually the person, who wants to claim the benefit, must be a person working a Food Inspector as on 1-3-1980. According to Mr. Reddy, even though the Sanitary Inspector, who was discharging the duties of Food Inspector even before that date without any specific designation, though working as on 1-3-1980 as Food Inspector, is not entitled to be continued as Food Inspector.
(3.)The appellant was appointed as Sanitary Inspector, Grade-II on 11-10-1966 by proceedings RCC No. 5427/66 p. 5 dated 11-10-1966. His services were regularised with effect from 23-1-1977 by proceedings dated 30-11-1972. Admittedly, he has not possessed the requisite academic qualification for being appointed as Food Inspector. The relevant portion of Notification in G.O. Ms. No. 313, Health, dated 23-2-1956 reads as under :
"NOTIFICATION-I : xx xx xx NOTIFICATION-II : In exercise of the powers conferred by S.9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (Central Act XXXVII of 1954) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby - (1) appoints the persons specified in column (1) of the Schedule below to be Food Inspector for purposes of the said Act; and (2) directs that the persons aforesaid shall exercise powers within the local areas specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Persons Local areas (1) (2) 1. xx xx xx xx xx xx 2. xx xx xx xx xx xx 3. Sanitary Inspectors Panchayat having a Sanitary Inspector. 4. xx xx xx xx xx xx ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 8 and proviso thereunder, before amendment, read as under : "8. QUALIFICATIONS OF FOOD INSPECTOR : A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector, unless he - (i) is a Medical Officer-in-charge of the health administration of a local area; or (ii) is a Graduate or a Licentiate in Medicine and has received at least one month's training in food inspection and sampling work approved for the purpose by the Central or the State Government. (iii) is a qualified Sanitary Inspector having an experience as such for a minimum period of one year and has received at least three months' training in food inspection and sampling work in any of the Laboratories referred to in Clause (i) of R. 6; or (iv) is a Graduate in Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects or a Graduate in Agriculture, Food Technology or Dairy Technology, and has received at least three month's training in food inspection and sampling work in any of the Laboratories referred to in Clause (i) of Rule 6; Provided that a person who is a Food Inspector on the date of commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1968, may continue to hold office as such subject to the terms and conditions of service applicable to him, even though he does not fulfil the qualifications laid down in Cls. (i) to (iv)."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.