BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/09/2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

W.P.(MD)NO.12742 of 2009

and

M.P.(MD)NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2009

H.Ramachandran .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Secretary to Government,

Health and Family Welfare Department,

Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Public Health and

Preventive Medicine (State Food Authorities),

No.359, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 009.

3.The Director,

Annamalai University,

Directorate of Distance Education,

Chithambaram. .. Respondents
 This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus

to call for the records relating to G.O.(Ms)No.215, dated 03.07.2008 and to

quash para 6(ii) of the said G.O. passed by the first respondent herein as

illegal and against the provisions of law and in consequence thereof direct the

respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Food Inspector.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.Veerakathiravan for

Mr.R.P.Karuppasamy

^For Respondents ... Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, GA for RR 1 and 2

Ms.Nisha Banu for R-3

----

:ORDER

Heard Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,

Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and

2 and Ms.Nisha Banu, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2.The short question that arises for consideration is whether the

respondent State was justified in holding that whether a candidate who possesses

B.Sc. Degree course in Applied Chemistry offered by Annamalai University under

the Distance Education Programme before 15.2.2007 is eligible to be considered

as equivalent for holding the post of Food Inspector and whether the Government
was right in cancelling its earlier order, dated 5.4.2007 in this regard?

3.The petitioner is working as a Sanitary Inspector in Tiruppur

Municipality. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 8(c) of the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Rules, he is entitled to get appointed as a Food Inspector.

Initially, the State Government by G.O.(D) No.452, Health and Family Welfare

Department, dated 5.4.2007 allowed Diploma course in Food Technology granted by

the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, which is a deemed University at Salem.

Though this court upheld the validity of the G.O., when it was put to challenge,

the matter was taken on appeal before a division bench. The division bench vide

its judgment in W.A.(MD)Nos.236 and 237 of 2007, dated 11.10.2007 in Tamil Nadu

Graduate Food Inspector's Association Vs. The Director-cum-State Food Health

Authority and others reversed the said judgment and held that since the said

diploma course offered by the Vinayaga Mission was not recognised by the AICTE

and that the diploma under the Distance Education Programme was not approved by

the Distance Education Council as well as University Grants Commission and the

order of the State Government was invalid.

4.Subsequent to the said judgment, the State Government accepted the said

order and issued the impugned Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.215, Health and

Family Welfare Department, dated 3.7.2008. While the petitioner has no quarrel

over the implementation of the said order, with reference to the diploma offered

by Vinayaga Mission, the deemed University, his grievance was that B.Sc. Degree

offered by the Annamalai University under the Distance Education cannot be

brought within the scope of the G.O. and to that extent , the G.O. was invalid.
The respondents must be directed to consider the case of the petitioner. The

counsel for the petitioner further submitted that his client must be considered

for the said post.

5.When the matter came up on 23.12.2009, this court directed respondents

to keep one post vacant. On taking notice, the first and second respondents have

filed a counter affidavit, dated 30.6.2010. In the counter affidavit, it was

stated that they had followed the earlier division bench order with reference to

the Distance Education Programme. While issuing the impugned G.O. by granting

the post dated approval, the question of considering B.Sc degree offered by the

Annamalai University will not arise. It was also stated that a writ petition is

pending in the principal Bench and therefore, no such direction can be issued.

6.Though Mr.Veerakathiravan, learned counsel forcibly submitted that this

degree issued by the University was approved by the University Grants

Commission, this court is unable to accept such a contention. Unless and until

the authorities recognised a particular degree as a degree coming within the

scope of relevant service rule, the petitioner by approaching this court cannot

make the court to give a direction so as to bind the authorities to approve such

degrees as equivalent to the degrees which are required under law. The division

bench in its order, while commenting on the validity of the diploma canvassed

before the court, in paragraph 21 had observed as follows:

"21.In the facts and circumstances stated above, the crucial question that

arises to be answered is whether a diploma course offered by a deemed to be

university can be recognised to be equivalent to other diplomas, more

particularly when the said diploma course comes under the definition of
technical education as defined under the provisions of the AICTE, and such

course does not conform to the norms prescribed by the AICTE regarding duration

of course. Simply because a deemed to be university need not get prior approval

of AICTE for starting a diploma course in technical education, it does not mean

that such a course has to be recognised, even though the same has not been

approved by the AICTE. Requirement of prior permission to start a course is one

thing and requirement of approval of the diploma certificates issued by the

Institution is another thing. In this case, obviously the diploma certificate

issued by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation is not recognised by the

AICTE as a diploma course conforming to its prescriptions."

7.The petitioner had nowhere in his affidavit stated that the degree

obtained under the Distance Education Programme was approved by the authorities.

In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Annamalai University represented by Registrar Vs. Secretary to Government,

Information and Tourism Department and others reported in 2009 (4) SCC 590. In

that case, similar argument relating to the same University granting M.A. Degree

was sought to be pressed into service as equivalent to the qualification

prescribed by the State in terms of statutory rule made under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India. Such a plea was negatived and the Supreme Court

emphasised that a person who was aspiring to enter into any service must possess

necessary qualification prescribed under the said Rule.

8.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed.

However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

To

1.The Secretary to Government,

Health and Family Welfare Department,

Fort St. George,

Chennai-600 009.

2.The Director of Public Health and

Preventive Medicine (State Food Authorities),

No.359, Anna Salai,

Chennai-600 009.

3.The Director,

Annamalai University,

Directorate of Distance Education,

Chithambaram.