S. Murugan Vs. the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

(Prayer in W.P.No.15617 of 2011: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of        Certiorari, to call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/ 2011 dated 27.06.2011 and to direct the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.)

Common Order

1. This judgment shall dispose of the following writ petitions, viz.,

S.Murugan / May, 2009

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No.2005/A1/ 2011 dated 27.6.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner. /

to call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dtd. 27.6.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

T.Jeyabalmoorthy / December, 2009

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/ 2011 dated 27.6.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

V.John Jonabark / March, 2007

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/2011 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/ 2011 dtd. 27.6.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

V.Ariganesan / December, 2002

To call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 2005/A1/ 2011 dtd. 27.6.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

Directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for participation of the remaining classes and to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

M.B.Senthil Ramkumar / May, 2009

To quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R. No. 102/A1/2011 dated 26.4.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

To quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R. No. 4499/G2/2010 dtd. 26.4.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

Directing the respondents to permit the petitioner for participation of the remaining classes and to issue a training certificate to the petitioner.

 P.Mappillai Durai / December, 2009

To quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R.No. 4499/G2/2010 dated 27.06.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the Petitioner.

S.Suruliappan / December, 2008 

To call for the records and to quash the order of the 2nd respondent in R. No. 2005/A1/2011 dtd. 27.6.2011 and directing the respondents to issue a Training Certificate to the petitioner.

1.J.Prabagaran 

2.P.Murugan

3.V.Murugan

To call for the records connected with the proceedings issued R.No. 20400/PFA/2008/ S2 dated 15.2.2011 passed by the 1st respondent (in so far as 2nd respondent is concerned) and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to send the petitioners for Food Inspection and Sampling Training.

2.The petitioner passed his 10^th standard in the year 1991 and +2 in 1993 at Gandhi Gramam Deemed University, Ambathurai, Dindugal District and completed B.Sc. Applied Chemistry in May 2009 under Distance Education stream at Annamalai University. The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Class community and was appointed as Sanity Inspector on 12.05.1997 at Kancheepuram Municipal Office and is presently employed in the office of the Commissioner, Corporation of Tiruppur.

3. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai, vide order dated 03.06.2011, selected Sanitary Inspectors / Health Inspectors to undergo training at Food Analysis Laboratory at various places from 10.06.2011 for a period of three months. A certificate is issued to the candidate based on the performance in Theory, Practical and Viva Voce based on the internal assessment. The eligibility condition for the training is a degree with the subject of Chemistry.

4. As already noticed above, in pursuance to the willingness shown by petitioner, he was shortlisted and deputed for training at the office of the Public Analyst, Food Analysis Laboratory, Palayamkottai.

5. The petitioner joined the training centre on 10.06.2011 and also filled up security bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The petitioner completed more than 18 days of training, when the impugned order was passed, cancelling the training of petitioner. The reason for cancelling the candidature of petition was, that he obtained B.Sc. Applied Chemistry before 15.02.2007 at Annamalai University.

6. The action of the respondents is challenged on the ground of it being totally arbitrary and based on erroneous facts, on the ground, that the petitioner was conferred with the B.Sc. Degree in May 2009, i.e. much after 15.02.2007.

7. That the petitioner was admitted to the training after verification of the certificate, therefore, it was not permissible for the respondents to cancel the training midway. It is submitted, that similarly situated persons had challenged the action of the respondents in cancelling the training, who were permitted to undergo training in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The interim order was also passed in favour of petitioner.

8. The facts in W.P.Nos.15618 to 15622, 15624, 15625, 15627 to 15629 and 15631, 11816 to 11818, 15289 and 15789 of 2011 are identical. Whereas the petitioners in W.P.Nos.15623 and 15626 of 2011 passed B.Sc. Applied Chemistry in May, 2003 and the petitioner in W.P.No.15630 of 2011 passed in December 2002.

9. The post of Sanitary Inspectors is filled up by direct recruit with the qualification of B.Sc. (Chemistry) with Food Inspector Course and Sanitary Inspector Course from recognized institution of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The post is also filled up by promotion from the employees, possessing Degree of B.Sc (Chemistry), who pass Food Inspector's course and Sanitary Inspector's course conducted by any institution recognized by the Government of Tamil Nadu.

10. Though the above mentioned qualification is prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporation Public Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.120 also allowed the Field Assistant working in the department to be promoted as Sanitary Inspector. The Sanitary Inspector post in the Chennai Corporation is also filled up by direct recruitment and the qualification prescribed for the post is B.Sc. Degree with Chemistry as main subject with Sanitary Inspector certificate. The Sanitary Inspectors are eligible for being appointed to the post of Food Inspector.

11. The Rule 8 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 lays down qualification for Food Inspector as under:

"Qualifications for Food Inspector:- A person shall not be qualified for appointment as food inspector unless he:-

(a) Is a medical officer incharge of health administration of a local area; or

(b) Is a graduate in medicine and has received at least one month's training in food inspection and sampling work approved for the purpose by the Central Government or a State Government;

(c) Is a graduate in Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects or is a graduate in Agriculture or Public Health or Pharmacy or in Veterinary Science or a graduate in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or is a diploma holder in Food Technology or Dairy Technology from a University or Institution established in India by law or has equivalent qualifications recognized and notified by the Central Government for the purpose and has received three month's satisfactory training in food inspection and sampling work under a Food (Health) Authority or in an institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government."

12. The reading of the rule shows, that the person to be eligible for appointment as Food Inspector has to undergo training from the Government lab. In order to fill up the post of Food Inspector in the State of Tamil Nadu, a decision was taken to depute willing Sanitary Inspectors working in the Health and Family Welfare Department as also Chennai Corporation to undergo training.

13. The Government, vide order dated 05.04.2007 sent 111 Sanitary Inspectors and 50 Graduate Food Inspectors on various dates to the Central Government Laboratory throughout State vide G.O.(D) No.452 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 05.04.2007, which was challenged by the Graduate Food Inspectors, possessing in Diploma in Dairy Technology and other field from Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation.

14. The Tamil Nadu Graduate Food Inspector's Association had filed W.P.No.3580 of 2007, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus, to direct the Government to get advice and approval before imparting training to Health Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors in food inspection and sampling work to the candidates, who are holding diploma certificates in food technology issued by Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation.

15. W.P.No.4736 of 2007 was also filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash G.O.(D) No.452 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 05.04.2007 so far as it deals with inclusion of names of Sanitary Inspectors and Health Inspectors, who were having diploma certificate in food technology.

16. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Hon'ble Single Judge, the Tamil Nadu Graduate Food Inspector's Association filed W.A.Nos.236 and 237 of 2007. The Hon'ble Division Bench disposed of the appeals by observing, that the important aspects indicated in the judgment in appeal were not considered by the Government before issuing the impugned notification, therefore, decided to remit the matter to the Government for fresh consideration in the light of observations made in the judgment.

17. The observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, read as under:

"4. We have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. As the main contention in these appeals centres around the qualification of the persons to be appointed as Food Inspectors, it shall be convenient to refer to the relevant provision, namely Section 9(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 dealing with appointment of Food Inspectors. Section 9(1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 says that the Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such persons as it thinks fit, having the prescribed qualifications to be Food Inspectors for such local area as may be assigned to them by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be. The qualifications for appointment as Food Inspector are found in Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 which reads as follows:

A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector unless he-

(a) Is a medical officer incharge of health administration of a local area; or

(b) Is a graduate in medicine and has received at least one month's training in food inspection and sampling work approved for the purpose by the Central Government or a State Government; or

(c) Is a graduate in Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects or is a graduate in Agriculture or Public Health or Pharmacy or in Veterinary Science or a graduate in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or is a diploma holder in Food Technology or Dairy Technology from a University or Institution established in India by law or has equivalent qualifications recognised and notified by the Central Government for the purpose and has received three month's satisfactory training in food inspection and sampling work under a Food (Health) Authority or in an institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government:

Provided that the training in food inspection and sampling work obtained prior to the commencement of [Rule 3 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 1976,] in any of the laboratories under the control of-

(i) A Public Analyst appointed under the Act; or

(ii) A fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain (Branch E); or

(iii) Any Director, Central Food Laboratory; or the training obtained under a Food (Health) Authority, prior to the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980, shall be considered to be equivalent for the purpose of the requisite training under these rules:

[Provided further that a person who is a qualified Sanitary Inspector having experience as such for a minimum period of one year and has received at least three months training in whole or in part in food inspection and sampling work, may be eligible for appointment as Food Inspector, upto the period ending on the 31st March, 1985 and may continue as such if so appointed even though he does not fulfil the qualifications laid down in clauses (a) to (c)]

Provided also that nothing in this rule shall be construed to disqualify any person who is a Food Inspector on the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980 from continuing as such after such commencement.

6. There is no controversy that a person, who was a qualified Sanitary Inspector having experience as such for a minimum period of one year and had received at least 3 months training in food inspection and sampling work, might have been eligible for appointment as Food Inspector, upto the period ending on the 31st March of 1985, even though he did not fulfill the qualifications laid down in Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 8. This is so laid down in the second proviso to the above said rule. The third proviso is to the effect that those persons, who had already been appointed as Food Inspectors before the commencement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 1980, could continue as such after such commencement, even though they did not possess any one of the qualifications prescribed in Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 8. Those two provisos deal with appointments as Food Inspectors made prior to the commencement of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules 1980 and appointments that could have been made before 31st March 1985. We are not concerned with those provisos which are exceptions to the qualifications prescribed in Clauses (a) to (c) of Rule 8.

7. Clause (a) of Rule 8 is to the effect that a Medical officer in charge of Health Administration of a local area is qualified to be appointed as Food Inspector. Clause (b) deals with the eligibility of graduates in medicine for appointment as Food Inspectors. In case of graduates in medicine as per Clause (b), to become eligible to be appointed as Food Inspectors, they should have received at least one month's training in food inspection and sampling work approved for the purpose by the Central Government or by the State Government. There is no controversy regarding Clause (a) and Clause (b).

8. Clause (c) of Rule 8 deals with the third category of persons who can be appointed as Food Inspectors. It contains the following categories:

(1) Graduates in Science with Chemistry as one of the subjects; (2) Graduates in Agriculture; (3) Graduates in Public Health; (4) Graduates in Pharmacy; (5) Graduates in Veterinary Science; (6) Graduates in Food Technology; (7) Graduates in Technology; (8) Diploma holders in Food Technology or Dairy Technology from a University or Institution established in India by law; (9) Any other person having equivalent qualifications recognised and notified by the Central Government for the purpose. All persons coming under the above said 9 categories should have received three months satisfactory training in food inspection and sampling work under a Food (Health) Authority or in an institution approved for the purpose by the Central Government. So far as the eligibility of the candidates, possessing a degree in any one of the above said disciplines who have received 3 months training in food inspection and sampling work, is concerned, there is no dispute that they can be appointed as Food Inspectors. Controversy has arisen only in respect of diploma holders.

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that though Sub-clause (c) of Rule 8 recognises a diploma in Food Technology or Dairy Technology as a qualification for being appointed as Food Inspector, provided such diploma holders receive three months training in food inspection and sampling work, the diploma should have been a recognised one either by the University Grants Commission or by the AICTE and that any other diploma not recognised by either of the said bodies could not be a valid qualification for being appointed as Food Inspectors. In this regard, the grievance of the appellant Association is that those who have obtained diploma certificates from Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation (a Deemed University), arrayed as the fourth respondent in W.A. No. 236/2007 and sixth respondent in W.A. No. 237/2007, have undergone the course for a period of one year alone after completing S.S.L.C. (X Standard or matriculation) and that hence, they could not be treated on par with graduates.

10. On the other hand, the contention of the fifth respondent in W.A. No. 236/2007, which has been arrayed as seventh respondent in W.A. No. 237/2007, before the learned Single Judge and before this Division Bench is to the effect that a diploma conferred by a Deemed University, irrespective of the duration of the course undergone and the minimum qualification for getting admission to the said course, should be recognised as a diploma referred to in Clause (c) of Rule 8. In connection with the above said contention, the learned Single Judge seems to have dealt with the difference between the terms 'technical institution', 'university' and 'deemed to be universities' at length. After referring to the following judgments of the Supreme Court (i) State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and Ors. (ii) Bharathidasan University and Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education and Ors. reported in 2001 (8) SCC 676, the learned Single Judge has observed that there is no necessity to get prior approval from the AICTE before a University or deemed to be university starts a new technical course. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has also observed as follows:

"It is an admitted fact that the diploma was given by a deemed university and it has been granted with such status under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act and therefore, nobody other than the UGC can go behind the validity of such a diploma."

11. The learned Counsel for the appellant, drawing our attention to the relevant provisions under the UGC Act and the AICTE Act, contended that the learned Single Judge had proceeded on the wrong assumption that the dispute was regarding the question whether a deemed to be university could be equated with a university and as such whether such university had to get the prior approval of All India Council for Technical Education to start any technical course. It is the contention of neither party that the Vinayaga Mission Research Institution did not have the authority to start any technical course without having a prior approval of the AICTE. Admittedly the said institution, being a deemed university, need not get any such prior approval from the AICTE. On the other hand, whether the diploma conferred by the said institution is a recognised diploma and which is the authority to accord recognition for such a diploma is the centre of controversy in this case.

12. We are very much impressed by the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that a diploma issued after conducting a course for one year after a pass at the matriculation (S.S.L.C.) shall not be treated on par with a degree wherein one has to undergo the course for 5 years i.e. 2 years higher secondary course and 3 years degree course; that normally diploma courses are of 3 years duration after matriculation or 2 years duration after higher secondary and that such diploma certificates alone could be recognised as equivalent to a degree. The learned Counsel contended further that now-a-days very many institutions, universities and deemed to be universities are conducting so many diploma courses of very short duration and all such diplomas should not be recognised to be qualifications equivalent to a degree in the subject. In the case on hand, the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation (deemed university) had admitted candidates having X standard or matriculation qualification and had issued the diploma after they underwent the course for one year alone.

13. The University Grants Commission has issued a notice/circular dated 23.08.2005 in which it has been stated that the Deemed to be Universities can offer Distance Education Programme only through its own study centres and that too, with the specific approval of both the UGC and Distance Education Council. The Distance Education Council, IGNOU has issued a notice/circular dated 05.01.2006 containing the following directions:

"As per the Gazette notification No. 44 dated 1st March, 1995 of Government of India, Degrees/Diplomas not recognized by DEC will not be considered eligible for Government services.

The programmes of the above mentioned universities/Deemed to be Universities offered through distance mode are not approved by DEC.

The students, parents and public at large are advised to take note of the above points while seeking admission in State Universities/Deemed to be Universities."

14. The letter addressed by the Deputy Director of Distance Education Council, Indira Gandhi National Open University dated 02.12.2005 in reply to the query regarding the recognition of the diploma course offered by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, contains the following information:

"This is to inform you that as per our records the institution under reference does not fulfill the conditions of Gazette Notification No. 44 dated 1st March, 1995. The said programme is not approved by Distance Education Council."

15. From the prospectus issued by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, it is seen that the said institution offered a diploma course in food technology which is of the duration of one year after a pass in X standard. As already noticed, the universities or deemed to be universities are not obliged to get prior approval before starting any course, even a technical course which has got to be recognised either by UGC or by AICTE. But it does not mean and it cannot be stretched further to mean that the diploma courses offered by the universities or deemed to be universities in the disciplines which come under the purview of the AICTE need not conform to the standards prescribed by the AICTE in matters of maintaining standards. Nor such diploma courses offered by such universities or deemed to be universities shall be entitled to automatic recognition by the Government, even though such courses are not recognised by the AICTE.

16. It is not in controversy that any diploma in technology has got to be recognised by the AICTE. In this regard, as per the letter dated 19.07.2006 of the Regional Officer of the AICTE, food technology is a technical education as defined under AICTE Act; that the duration of the above course prescribed by the AICTE is 3 years in diploma level and 4 years in degree level and that the diploma certificates issued by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation (a deemed university) is not in sufficient compliance of the norms and standards prescribed by the AICTE.

17. The Public Information Officer of the Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai in his memorandum dated 09.08.2006 has stated as follows:

"The Diploma certificate awarded by the VRMF Deemed University cannot be considered as equivalent to any other Diploma awarded by the State Board of Technical Education and Training, Tamil Nadu. The Deemed University is not coming under the purview of Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai."

18. In this regard, the shifting stands taken by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation at various stages have been highlighted by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The original stand of the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation seems to be that they never imparted any training in the course leading to diploma in food technology and that they had conducted diploma courses in health and sanitary inspection which come under general medicine courses. This is apparent from the copy of the counter-affidavit signed by the Director of Distance Education, Vinayaga Mission University, Salem intended to be filed in W.A. No. 237 of 2007 served on the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. The appellant seems to have obtained a copy of the same by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act. The Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation has not chosen to deny the preparation and swearing of said counter-affidavit by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. On the other hand, it was simply contended on behalf of the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation that as such counter-affidavit was not filed in Court, the same could not be looked into. The said counter-affidavit is sought to be relied on by the appellant for a limited purpose of showing that there had been a shift in the stand of the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation. Hence we do not find any substance in the above said objection.

19. The initial stand of the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation was that they never conducted any course leading to the issue of a diploma certificate in food technology and that the only course offered by them was diploma in health and sanitary inspection. The University Grants Commission has taken a stand that they are concerned with the award of degrees alone and that the award of diploma certificates is the concern of the respective specialized agency, like All India Council for Technical Education and All India Medical Council of India, etc. Obviously the said counter-affidavit seems to have been prepared after the above referred communications of UGC and AICTE regarding the nature of course and the duration of course for getting approval of the AICTE. Even as per the circular of the University Grants Commission dated 23.08.2005, Distance Education Programmes can be offered with the specific approval of both the UGC and Distance Education Council. No such approval seems to have been obtained either from the UGC or from the Distance Education Council. Under these circumstances, the shifting stands taken by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation (a deemed university), which has issued the diploma certificates, assumes more importance.

20. If it is assumed that what was offered in Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation is diploma course in health and sanitary inspection and not diploma in food technology or dairy technology, then such a diploma shall not be considered as a valid qualification for being appointed as Food Inspectors under Rule 8(c). Diploma in Food Technology or Dairy Technology alone are the prescribed qualification under Rule 8(c). On the other hand, if a diploma course in food technology is offered in the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, as now contended by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, then such a course and the diploma issued shall be hit by the absence of two necessary requirements. They are (i) approval of the Distance Education Council IGNOU should have been obtained since the course is offered under Distance Education Scheme which the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation has failed to obtain; and (ii) Diploma in food technology being a technical education, it must conform to the norms of the AICTE and the diploma course should have been recognised by the AICTE, which in this case is absent.

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 Vinyaga Mission Research Foundation is not recognised by the AICTE as a diploma course conforming to its prescriptions."

18. In compliance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, the State Government took a decision, which reads as under:

"6. The Government have re-examined the proposal of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine in detail in the light of the orders of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and in consultation with Government Pleader and have decided to accept the above proposal of the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine. Accordingly the Government issue the following orders:

i) That orders issued in the G.O.(Ms) No.452, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 5.4.2007 is hereby cancelled.

ii) That Food Inspector Training Course conducted from 30.6.07 to 27.9.2007 by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine to the 111 candidates who possess the basic qualification Diploma in Food Technology offered by Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation Deemed University, Salem and 32 candidates who possess the basic qualifications B.Sc. Degree Course in Applied Chemistry offered by Annamalai University as a Distance Course before 15.2.2007 are not eligible to post them as Food Inspector; and that

The 16 candidates whose names are given in the Annexure to this Government Order and who have studied and obtained B.Sc. Chemistry in the regular Colleges / IGNOU be given Training completion certificate and be posted as Food Inspectors since they satisfy the requirements specified in clause (c) of Rule 8 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act Rules 1955."

19. In spite of the fact, that G.O.(D) No.452 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 05.04.2007 was cancelled, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (State Food Authority) vide order R.No.43502/PFA/S2/08 dated 17.10.2008 directed the Public Analysis and Food Analysis Laboratory authorities to issue certificates to 7 persons, who had completed their training for Food Inspectors from 15.07.2007 to 12.01.2008.

20. It may be noticed here, that all these seven persons had completed their course from Annamalai University in Distance mode, which was not a recognized degree by All India Council for Technical Education. Vide G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department dated 03.07.2008, the Government sent 16 Food Inspectors for training, as they had obtained B.Sc. Chemistry in the regular colleges.

21. One Mr.P.Elango challenged the G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department dated 03.07.2008, by filing W.P.No.17848 of 2008. This Court stayed the operation of the Government Order Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department dated 03.07.2008, but vide order dated 03.12.2008, stay order was modified and 16 persons shown in the Government order were allowed to undergo training, as the stay against these 16 persons was vacated.

22. G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department dated 03.07.2008 has been challenged by the Diploma Holders in W.P.No.17848 of 2008, in which as already noticed above, stay granted has been modified. It may be noticed here, that the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (State Food Authority), vide proceedings R.No.43502/PFA/S2/06 dated 07.05.2009, addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, has given his opinion, that the diploma holders, who completed their course in Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, could also be considered for appointment, as the Joint Committee of University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education and Distance Education Council have issued post facto approval from February 2007 for the courses conducted upto 2005.

23. Learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae pointed out that this recommendation is contrary to law as laid down in State of T.N. and another vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute and others, (1995) 4 SCC 104. It is not necessary to go into this question at this stage, as G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department dated 03.07.2008 stipulates, that persons having degree before 15.02.2007 are not eligible for being appointed as Food Inspectors.

24. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel, that in the previous decision of this Court, a positive finding was recorded, that the degree obtained from Annamalai University through distance mode and diploma from Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation were bad. It is submitted, that the writ petitioners claims to have completed their course of Applied Chemistry after 15.02.2007, but this plea cannot be accepted, as it is settled law, that post facto approval can be given to the University, and not to course.

25. It is also contended, that cut off date on 15.02.2007 is as per the wish of the Government, but retrospective approval cannot be given even by IGNOU, as orders would have prospective effect only.

26. It is submitted, that one Mr.Albert Arul Raj's name is also included in Sl.No.35 above all the persons recommended for Food Inspector training. It is submitted, that Thiru Albert Arul Raj has been sent for training, though he was held to be disqualified in the previous writ petition.

27. Learned Amicus Curiae placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Annamalai University, Rep. By its Registrar vs. Secretary to Government Information and Tourism Department and others, 2009 (4) 590, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down, that the regulations framed by UGC to determine standards of education became part of the UGC Act and the same are applicable to both open Universities as well as conventional formal universities. In that respect, the alternative system envisaged under IGNOU Act was not in substitution of the formal system. The distinction lay rather in the mode and manner of imparting education, therefore, Master's degree awarded in violation of Regn.2 of UGC Regulations of 1985 by a university under Open University System (OUS) without requiring three years' graduate degree, was held to be void and it was held that though Distance Education Council of IGNOU was the authority under Statute 28, IGNOU Act, 1985, it could not validate the same by granting its approval, much less with retrospective effect.

28. There is no allegation, that degrees awarded were in violation of any statutory regulation, but the reason for non recognition was, that the courses were not approved by All India Council for Technical Education. This judgment, therefore, has no relevance to the question in issue.

29. It was also pointed out, that the degree obtained by pursuing correspondence course cannot be equated in all circumstances with the degree obtained after attending regular classes.

30. The question therefore to be decided in this case is as to whether the respondents were justified in recalling the petitioners from the training.

31. The answer to this question is to be in "negative". Though G.O.Ms.No.215 is under challenge in this Court, but no decision has been taken thereon. The Hon'ble Division Bench had directed the State Government to take a decision. Accordingly, a decision has been taken to accept the degree granted by the Annamalai University Distance Course after 15.02.2007, therefore, it was not open to the State Government to recall the petitioners, who had passed their degree courses after 15.02.2007, as the said degree was duly recognized by the Joint Committee of University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education and Distance Education Council.

32. It was also not open to the respondents to recall the petitioners from training without issuing show cause notice to the petitioners herein. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.15617 to 15622, 15624, 15625, 15627 to 15629 and 15631, 11816 to 11818, 15289 and 15789 of 2011, could not have been recalled, by treating them to be ineligible to undergo training courses. Consequently, W.P.Nos.15617 to 15622, 15624, 15625, 15627 to 15629 and 15631, 11816 to 11818, 15289 and 15789 of 2011, are allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order of cancelling their selection for undergoing training.

33. However, W.P.Nos.15623, 15626 and 15630 of 2011 deserve to be dismissed, as admittedly, the petitioners had obtained degree of Applied Chemistry from Annamalai University through Distance Education prior to 15.02.2007, therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department dated 03.07.2008, they were not eligible for being sent to training, therefore, they have no right to continue their training being not qualified.

34. The petitioners in W.P.No.6142 of 2011 challenged the action of the respondents in sending Thiru Albert Arul Raj for training on the ground that he was one of the parties to the writ petition, whose selection was cancelled. The Hon'ble Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. Whereas the Hon'ble Division Bench, after making certain observations, had issued directions to the respondents to take afresh decision. In pursuance to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, G.O.Ms.No.215 Health and Family Welfare (AB2) Department dated 03.07.2008, is only subjudice. This Court therefore did not cancel any selection process and there is no need to go into further details in this case.

35. Learned Additional Government Pleader fairly stated at the bar, that all ineligible candidates have been recalled and in case Thiru Albert Arul Raj is found to be ineligible, he is also liable to be recalled.

36. In view of the positive stand taken by the learned Additional Government Pleader, W.P.No.6142 of 2011 has been rendered infructuous and it is disposed of accordingly.

37. The State Legal Services Authority, Chennai is hereby directed to pay a remuneration of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the Amicus Curiae Mr.S.Ilamvaludhi, who rendered his assistance to this Court in disposal of the petitions.

38. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.