Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners' main relief is for the issue of a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 11.8.2011 issued by the Principal Secretary, Food and Drug Administration, Government of U.P., Lucknow-respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioners claim to be working as Sanitary and Food Inspectors in Nagar Palika Parishad and in Nagar Nigam. They claimed that they have been duly selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission. Under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the petitioners have been notified to work as Sanitary and Food Inspectors. The said Act has been repealed on 4.8.2011. There was one more Act named as Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Under the said Act, a new rule, namely, Food Safety and Standards Rule, 2011 has been made by the Central Government. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 2.1.3. of the said Rules provides that on the date of commencement of these rules, a person who has already been appointed as a Food Inspector under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, may perform the duties of the Food Safety Officer if notified by the State/Central Government if the officer fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed for the post of Food Safety Officer by the State Government.

3. The State Government has issued impugned notification dated 11.8.2011, which is being challenged in the present writ petition. The notification reads as follows :

mRrj izns'k 'kklu

[kk| lqj{kk ,oa vkS"kf/k iz'kklu vuqHkkx

la[;k&1645@vV~Bklh&2011&100[kk0@11

y[kuÅ % fnukad 11 vxLr] 2011

vf/klwpuk

[kk| lqj{kk vkSj ekud fu;e] 2011 ds fu;e 1-1-3 ds mifu;e 2 ds lkFk ifBr [kk| lqj{kk vkSj ekud vf/kfu;e] 2006 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k 34] lu~ 2006½ dh /kkjk 37 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds v/khu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds] jkT;iky vf/klwfpr djrs gS fd mDr fu;e ds izkjEHk gksus ds fnukad 5 vxLr] 2011 dks [kk| vifeJ.k fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1954 ¼vf/kfu;e la[;k 37 lu~ 1954 ¼vc fujflr½ ds micU/kksa ds v/khu [kk| fujh{kd ds :i esa fu;qDr [kk| lqj{kk ,oa vkS"kf/k iz'kklu foHkkx ds laoxZ ls lEcfU/kr vkSj mlesa dk;Zjr O;fDr ¼[kk| fujh{kd ls eq[; [kk| fujh{kd ds :i esa inksUur O;fDr;ksa lfgr½ fnukad 5 vxLr] 2011 ls ;FkkfLFkfr [kk| lqj{kk vf/kdkjh vkSj eq[; [kk| lqj{kk vfèkdkjh ds drZO;ksa dk ikyu djsxsA

vkKk ls]

g0@vLi"V

Lrqfr dDdM+

izeq[k lfpoA

4. Heard Sri Somesh Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the petitioners are working as Sanitary and Food Inspectos and they are fully qualified to work as Food Safety Officer and by the impugned notification, the petitioners have been dispensed with to act as Food Inspectors. He submitted that for the issue of the notification under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 2.1.3. of the Food Safety and Standards Rule, 2011, the necessary steps have been taken by the State Government to allow the petitioners to perform the duties of Food Safety Officers and, therefore, the petitioners may be allowed to contiune to work as Food Inspectors.

6. Learned Standing Cousnel submitted that in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49263 of 2011, the validity of the notification dated 11.8.2011 has been upheld by the Division Bench. He submitted that till date no notification has been issued under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 2.1.3. of the Food Safety and Standards Rule, 2011 and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim to perform the duties of Food Safety Officers..

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the notifications and the various Rules.

8. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 has been repealed on 4.8.2011. There is no dispute in this regard. Under the said Act the petitioners were performing the duties as Food Safety Officers as Food Inspectors. By the impugned noti