Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh Thursday set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order directing the UT Services Selection Board (SSB) to recommend candidates for appointment as Food Inspectors, holding that the mandatory three-month training in food inspection and sampling was an essential statutory qualification and had to be possessed before appointment.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani allowed a petition filed by the UT administration, the SSB and the Food Safety Organisation, challenging the Tribunal’s July 25, 2025 judgment. The court consequently dismissed TA No. 7904 of 2021 filed by the candidates.
The case arose from an SSB recruitment notification inviting applications for Food Inspector posts. The candidates possessed the prescribed academic qualifications and participated in the selection process, eventually figuring in the select list under the Open Merit/RBA categories.
However, the SSB withheld their recommendations after finding that they did not possess the required three-month training in food inspection and sampling work.
The candidates contended before the CAT that the training requirement was not a condition precedent to appointment but could be acquired after selection and appointment. It accepted their argument and directed the SSB to forward their recommendations to the government.
The High Court disagreed, relying on Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which governed the recruitment process when it was initiated.
The rule, it said, expressly provided that a person could not be qualified for appointment as Food Inspector unless, among other requirements, they had received three months’ satisfactory training in food inspection and sampling work under the prescribed authority or an approved institution.
The Bench observed that the requirement had been specifically incorporated into the recruitment advertisement and that the candidates, despite being aware of it, neither challenged the stipulation nor possessed the mandatory training when their recommendations were due.
The SSB, therefore, was justified in declining to recommend their names, it said.
Rejecting the Tribunal’s view that the training could be obtained after appointment, the court held that the statutory language was “clear and unequivocal” and made the training a condition precedent for appointment.
It also held that reliance on the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 was misplaced because the recruitment process had commenced in 2010 and was governed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and the 1955 Rules.
In a significant observation on eligibility standards, the Bench held that once a qualification is prescribed by statute, neither the employer nor the selection agency can tamper with or relax it unless such relaxation is specifically authorised by the statute.
No such statutory provision was shown in the present case, it noted.
The court accordingly set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and dismissed the candidates’ application.
