The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even if not immediately published in the official gazette, can be validated by subsequent gazette notifications.

1. Aggrieved by issuance of notice dated 12.02.2014 in Food Safety and Standards Act Case No. 61 of 2013-14 and seeking quashing of the report no. 1567/FSSA/2013 dated 26.11.2013 of the Food Analyst in Form-B on the ground of its being without jurisdiction and void ab initio, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition. The challenge to the report dated 26.11.2013 is on the ground that the appointment of the Food Analyst is in teeth of mandatory provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. A prayer for quashing the appointment of Food Safety Officers vide notification dated 25.01.2012 has also been made in the writ petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.11.2013 samples of Everest Chat Masala and Vegetable Fresh Sweet Corn Kernel were taken by the Food Safety Officer, Ranchi after giving notice to the petitioner, for the purpose of analysis. The samples were analysed by the Public Analyst, Ranchi and a report dated 26.11.2013 was given holding that the sample of Vegetable Fresh Sweet Corn Kernel is misbranded in view of Section 3(1)(zf) read with Section 23 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and for non-compliance of Regulation 2.2.2.10 of the FS & S (Packaging and Labelling) Regulation, 2011. The result of the analysis of the samples taken from the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner by BSF-cum-DO-cum-ACMO-1, Ranchi vide memo dated 21.12.2013. Consequently, a complaint under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was filed in the Court of Adjudicating Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and thereafter, the proceeding being Food Safety and Standards Act Case No. 61 of 2013-14 was initiated and a show-cause notice dated 12.02.2014 was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 27.03.2014. The notice dated 12.02.2014 has been challenged as illegal, arbitrary, void ab initio and without jurisdiction on the ground that neither the Food Safety Officer nor the Public Analyst nor the Designated Officer was duly appointed as required under Sections 36, 37 and 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.

3. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the DO-cum-ACMO, Ranchi, the respondent no. 5 has been filed stating that vide notification dated 25.01.2012 published in the official gazette, the respondent no. 5 was appointed as Food Safety officer, Jharkhand. By the same notification, the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand has been designated as Commissioner of Food Safety and thus, there is no illegality in appointment of respondent no. 5 as Food Safety Officer by the respondent no. 2. Similarly, the appointment of Food Analyst, Jharkhand has also been notified in the official gazette under Section 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It is stated that vide order dated 12.02.2014, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Adjudicating Officer, Ranchi however, he did not appear before the Adjudicating officer and filed the writ petition which is not maintainable.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Challenging the appointment of the Food Analyst, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 provides a particular mode for appointment of Public Analyst and since such prescribed mode has not been followed, the appointment so made would be vitiated. The learned counsel refers to provision under Section 3(1)(zg) and Section 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notification with respect to appointment of the Food Analyst has to be published in official gazette and in this case admittedly it was published only on 18.07.2014 therefore, the Food Analyst who has examined the samples taken from the shop of petitioner was not competent to give a report. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court