of Andhra Pradesh & Anr Vs. K. Ramachandra Reddy & Ors  INSC 211
(7 April 1998)
V. Manohar, S.P. Kurdukar, D.P. Wadhwa S.P. Kurdukar, J.
granted in SLP Nos. 524-25 of 1991.
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.
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,
that the persons aforesaid shall exercise the powers within the local areas specified
in the corresponding entries in column (4) thereof".
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 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.
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.
The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in a very slipshod manner disposed
of the Representation Petition 51 of 1987 as under:
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.
is allowed accordingly. No. costs".
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.
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.
Perusal of the appointment orders and the Schedule 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
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.