The court affirmed the validity of the previous order regarding the educational qualifications for the post of Food Inspectors, and emphasized that petitioners cannot keep filing cases to achieve the same outcome.

1. The petitioner is an Association of State Municipal and Corporation Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Officers represented by its President. In this writ petition, the petitioner has come forward to seek for a direction to the respondents to include and treat the Diploma holders and those who have completed training in Food Inspection and Sampling at the institutions approved by the Government of India for appointing them for the posts of Food Safety Officers as per the draft rule issued in GSR No.39(E) in Section 2.1.3(IV) of Food Safety Officers.

2. According to the petitioner, under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Food Safety Officer is defined as a person who had already been appointed as a Food Inspector under the provision. It is the case of the petitioner that they have got diploma in Food Technology from the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation which is a deemed University. When those diploma holders who are working in the department, were selected and sent for Food Inspector Training, the same was challenged by the Graduate Food Inspectors Association. The matter was finally dealt with by a division bench in W.A.(MD)No.236 and 237 of 2007, dated 11.10.2007. The Division Bench presided by P.K.Misra, J. (as he then was) held that since the diploma given by the Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation had not been approved by the AICTE and since the diploma course offered by the said institution was under the Distance Education Programme and not approved by the UGC, they are not eligible to be considered as being educationally qualified for holding the said post.

3. Accepting the said judgment, the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.215, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 3.7.2008. By the said order, the Government had cancelled the earlier order in G.O.(D).No.452, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 5.4.2007. It was also held that persons who are in possession of diploma in Food Technology offered by Vinayaga Mission Research Foundation, a deemed University, are numbering about 111 and the other 32 candidates having B.Sc. Degree course in Applied Chemistry offered by the Annamalai University under the distance mode are not eligible for the post of Food Inspectors. The said order of the Government issued pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench was challenged before this Court as well as before the Madurai Bench of this Court. Even without challenge to that order, when certain persons moved this court represented by the petitioner association seeking for a direction to import the Food Inspection and Sampling Training so as to become a Food Inspector, a learned Judge of this court in W.P.No.13114 and 13300 of 2010 by a common order, dated 30.7.2010 dismissed the writ petitions by stating that unless G.O.Ms.No.215 is challenged, their request cannot be entertained.

4. In the meanwhile, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had issued a notification, dated 19.1.2011 notifying Draft Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011. In paragraph 2.1.3, qualifications for the post of Food Safety Officer has been stipulated. In paragraph 1.4, it was stated as follows:

2.1.3:Food Safety Officer.1.Qualification:Food Safety Officer shall be a whole time officer and shall, on the date on which eh is so appointed possesses the following:

(i) to (iii) omitted

(iv) has successfully completed training, for a specified period in food safety, food inspection and sampling under an Institute or Institution approved for the purpose by the Food Authority."

5. It is on the basis of the rules, the present writ petition came to be filed by the members of the petitioner association claiming that they have already undergone training in Food Inspection and Sampling and that they have held the office of Food Inspectors under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

6. It is not clear as to why the petitioners have been successively filing petitions when the issues h