IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment as Food Inspector under the Act, 1954 for limited purpose so as to enable the petitioner to exercise statutory powers under Section 10 the Act, Such appointment would not mean that the Corporation lost its superintendence and control over petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.—Order no. MJ/SC/ADM/13-14/338-42 dated 25th January, 2014 where under petitioner has been placed under suspension by respondent No. 2 (Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jammu) is sought to be quashed, with a further prayer for restraining the respondent No. 2 from interfering with the performance of the duties of the petitioner as Food Safety Officer as appointed under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

2. According to learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No. 2 is neither the appointing authority nor disciplinary authority. Petitioner has been appointed as Food Inspector by the Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vide SRO 39 notified on 19.1.2001, thereafter vide notification dated 8.12.2012, petitioner has been appointed as Food Safety Officer by the Commissioner of Food Safety, J&K, Jammu in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 37 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Supporting this contention, relied on the judgment, rendered in SWP No.1707/2005 dated 29.4.2009 in case Parmod Kumar v. State of J&K and Ors.

3. Respondent no. 2 has filed detailed objections wherein it has been specifically projected that the petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector on 13.9.1991 in the Respondent Corporation. On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee was appointed as Food Inspector on 11.12.2000. Earlier Food Inspectors and other officers were assigned the job of Food Inspectors under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and thereafter on repeal of the said Act, they were appointed as Food Safety Officers under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, copy of the service book as annexed with the objections is reflective of the same position, therefore, petitioner for all purposes is the employee of the Municipal Corporation, therefore, Respondent No. 2 is competent to place the petitioner under suspension.

4. While considering the rival submissions, it is quite clear that the petitioner has been appointed as Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Corporation, Jammu on 13.9.1991 then on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee has been promoted and appointed as Food Inspector.

5. Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the petitioner has been appointed as Food Inspector. Therefore, vide SRO 39, notified on 19.1.2001, the petitioner, as Food Inspector of Municipal Corporation, has been assigned local areas of Jammu Municipal Council where he was already posted as Food Inspector, same was required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, so as to enable him to perform the duties and to exercise the powers under Section 10 of the said Act. Such appointment is not to be termed as fresh appointment.

6. In the year 2006, the Food Safety and Standards was enacted which was amended in the year 2008. With the commencement of the said Act, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 was repealed. With such repeal, SRO 39 notified on 19.1.2001 issued by Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department ceased to operate as a necessary corollary, the position of the petitioner remains as it was prior to SRO 39, i.e. Food Inspector as his position was pursuant to his promotion in Municipal Corporation in the year 2000 (11.12.2000).

7. Now in view of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 37 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 vide notification dated 8.12.2012, the Food Inspector of the various organization, Corporations including that of Municipal Corporation, Jammu have been appointed as Food Safety Officer for local areas falling within their respective jurisdiction.

8. The position of the petitioner being Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, Jammu has not undergone any change so far control and supervision of the Municipal Corporation, his claim that he has been appointed by the competent authori