APHC010816602014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31948/2014 Between: Jasti Rama Rao S/o Venkateswarlu 45 Years, ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented By Its and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW(AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 34077/2014 Between: Aravapalli Ram Babu ...PETITIONER AND State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented By Its Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW(AP) 2. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) 3. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1314/2016 Between: Aravapalli Ram Babu, ...PETITIONER AND Smt Poonam Malakondaiah Ias and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. VADAPALLI RAMESH The Court made the following Common Order : -2- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nos.31948 and 34077 of 2014 CONTEMPT CASE No.1314 of 2016 COMMON OR D E R : The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of petitioners for appointment to the post of Food Safety Officer. The petitioners claim that they are eligible for appointment to the said post and non-permitting the petitioners to perform the duties of Food Safety Officers is under challenge. This Court on 12.11.2014 directed the respondents to consider the case of petitioners for promotion to the post of Food Safety Officer as per Rules. The petitioner in WP.No.34077 of 2014 has filed contempt case for non-compliance of the orders of this Court dated 12.11.2014. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Health Assistants in October, 1990 and petitioner in WP.No.34077 of 2014 was promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 09.10.2006. The petitioner in WP.No.31948 of 2014 was promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 14.09.2007. It is submitted that both the petitioners have acquired the requisite qualifications for being appointed as Food Safety Officers. The petitioners were working as Sanitary Inspectors Cum Food Inspector. After the introduction of Food Safety and -3- Standard Rules, 2011, the respondent/authorities have allowed and notified all Food Inspectors who were working as on that date of issuing the 2011 Rules as Food Safety Officers. However, the names of the petitioners did not figure in the list notified. The petitioners claim that they worked as Food Inspectors and perform the duties of Food Inspectors and also possess the requisite qualification for appointment as Food Safety Officer. 3. It is submitted that two other employees who also belong to the Local Bodies as that of the petitioners was considered by the respondents; however, the petitioners were not considered for appointment as Food Safety Officers. One Mr.G.Venkateswarlu and B.Srinivas who also belong to Local Bodies and also juniors in service to the petitioners were appointed as Food Safety Officers and that the same would constitute an illegal discrimination. 4. The respondents in their counter submit that for appointment to the post of Food Inspector of Food Safety Officer, the Sanitary/Health Inspectors working in Panchayats and Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Health Inspectors working in the Medical and Health Department could not be considered for appointment as Food Safety Officers as the Post of Sanitary/Health Inspectors was deleted in the Municipal Corporation and panchayats and other local bodies. -4- 5. The respondents also submit that the petitioners were working as Sanitary Inspectors and had discharged the role of a Food Inspector on part-time basis while working as Sanitary Inspectors. Part-time discharging the duty of the Food Inspector on a part- time basis would not entitle the petitioners to claim for appointment as Food Safety Officers. It is submitted that the rule mandates working on a Fulltime basis. The qualifications for appointment of a Food Safety Officer are also detailed in the counter and as seen from Rule 2.1.3 of the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011; the Food Safety Officer would be a Fulltime Officer. It is also stated that any person appointed prior to the commencement of the rules as a Food Inspector may perform the duties of a Food Safety Officer if notified by the State or Central Government. In the present case, the petitioners appointment as Food Inspectors was not notified as they lack the requisite experience and they did not meet the required criteria. The role of the petitioners to perform the duty of a Food Safety Officer was not found appropriate as the Food Safety Officer is required to work fulltime on the Food Safety and Standard and related work. The petitioners have other duties to take care of sanitation, control epidemic outbreak its survellinance, registration of births/deaths, immunization/vaccinations programs. -5- 6. The petitioners are undisputedly discharging the role of sanitary inspector and the jurisdiction assigned to the petitioners is by the authority of the Municipal Corporation. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for being appointed as Food Safety Officers could not be considered as their work as Food Inspectors on part-time or need basis would not entitle for claiming the post of Food Safety Officers as the petitioners were also discharging their other regular duties for which their recruitment was undertaken. 7. The petitioners were appointed as Sanitary Inspectors in the local bodies and not as Food Inspectors under the Food Adulteration Act, 1954. It is submitted that Food Inspectors are under the control of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration. The respondents have notified those employees who fulfilled the requirement for being notified as Food Safety Officers notified accordingly. 8. The respondents in their counter also submit that the petitioners have compared themselves with G.Venkateswara Rao and B.Srinivas. It is stated in the counter that the said two employees, the petitioners carrier began as Health Assistant much later when compared to G.Venkateswara Rao and B.Srinivas and that the petitioners cannot claim seniors when compared to G.Venkateswara Rao and B.Srinivas. It is also submitted that as -6- per GOMs.No.306, Medical Welfare and Family Welfare department, the channel of appointment as Sanitary Inspectors/Health Inspectors working in local bodies was excluded for consideration for appointment by transfer to the post of Food Inspector. It is also stated in the counter that Institute of Preventive Medicine Subordinate Service Special Rules issued in GOMs.No.459, dated 08.09.1994 laydown the three modes of appointment to the post of Food Inspectors. On account of the deletion of Sanitary/Health Inspectors working in local bodies and Municipalities as Feeder category for appointment as Food Inspector (Non-Gazetted) the petitioners cannot claim any right of appointment and also cannot challenge their non-appointment. The petitioners also filed OA.No.166 of 2016 and the OA was filed seeking similar reliefs, the OA was dismissed on 08.06.2016 and WP.No. 7984 of 2016 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the Composite High Court at Hyderabad on 28.04.2017. 9. The challenge to GOMs.No.306 is rejected by the learned Division Bench of Composite High Court at Hyderabad and the learned Division Bench has considered the similar and identical issue where the petitioners sought the similar reliefs seeking appointment to the post of Food Safety Officer. The contempt petitions which were also filed seeking non-implementation of the -7- interim orders were also dismissed along with the writ petitions. Following the orders of the learned Division Bench in identical set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief claimed by the petitioners squarely falls within the teeth of the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petitions and contempt case are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ________________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 28.03.2025 KGM -8- THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nos.31948 and 34077 of 2014 CONTEMPT CASE No.1314 of 2016 Dated 28.03.2025 KGM