A.K. Patnaik, J.--1. Leave granted. These are appeals against the orders dated 2.3.2007 and 19.3.2007 of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2677 of 2005. The facts briefly are that on the basis of a news published in Rajasthan Patrika on 4.4.2005 regarding the manufacture and sale of synthetic milk in the districts of Alwar and Bharatpur in the State of Rajasthan, the High Court suo motu entertained DB Civil Writ Petition No. 2677 of 2005 on 6.4.2005 and directed the Collectors of Alwar and Bharatpur Districts to appear in person before the Court. The Collector, Alwar, filed his reply before the High Court stating inter alia that the very next day after the news item was published, the Chief Medical Health Officer, Alwar, had initiated action and an inspection team had taken samples of the product and the samples were sent for testing in the laboratory.

2. On 2.3.2007, the High Court found that the Chief Medical Health Officers and Deputy Chief Medical Health Officers had been vested with the powers of the Food Inspector, though they did not have the requisite training to function as Food Inspectors. The High Court also observed in the order dated 2.3.2007 that the Chief Medical Health Officer/Deputy Chief Medical Health Officer has to discharge duties of his post and has to remain at the headquarters and he may not effectively perform the duties of the post of Food Inspector. The High Court was of the view that the State Government should appoint sufficient number of Food Inspectors without which the menace of food adulteration could not be checked. The High Court posted the matter to 19.3.2007 and directed that the Principle Secretary, Medical and Health Department should be personally present on that day.

3. On 19.3.2007, the High Court found that there was 34 posts of Food Inspectors and all of them were lying vacant and that a requisition had already been sent to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to fill up the posts, but the Finance Department had not sanctioned the posts on the ground that these were non-plan posts. The High Court in the impugned order dated 19.3.2007 directed the Medical Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan to initiate the process of regular appointment against the 34 posts of Food Inspectors and also directed the Finance Department not to stall the process of appointment on technical grounds. The High Court further directed in the order dated 19.3.2007 that till regular appointment is made, Sanitary Inspectors and others who possess the requisite qualifications may be given appointment to the posts of Food Inspector so that the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Rules are properly implemented.

4. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Rajasthan, submitted that section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 vests power in the State Government to appoint such persons, as it thinks fit, having prescribed qualifications to be Food Inspectors, and it is within the prerogative of the Government to determine the number of Food Inspectors required to be appointed and therefore the High Court could not have issued a mandamus to the State Government to make appointment of as many as 34 Food Inspectors. He further submitted that Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 prescribed the qualifications for the purpose of appointment of Food Inspector under section 9 of the Act and it provides that the medical officer in charge of health administration of a local area could be appointed as Food Inspector. He submitted that the High Court, therefore, could not have held that the medical officers cannot be continued as Food Inspectors.

5. Section 9 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short “the Act”) and Rule 8 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short “the Rules”) are extracted hereinbelow :

“Section 9 of the Pre