Employer's authority to define qualifications for recruitment is upheld, reinforcing limited judicial review scope.

Judgment

29/08/2025

1. Petitioner has assailed legality, validity and propriety of order dated 23.04.2025 issued by the Assistant Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RPSC’), whereby, candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Food Safety Officer has been rejected on account of not possessing requisite educational qualification.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-RPSC issued advertisement dated 05.08.2019 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of Food Safety Officer. As per the advertisement, the requisite educational qualifications were as under:

“1. (i) A degree in Food Technology or Dairy technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary Science or Bio-Chemistry or Microbiology or Masters Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine from a recognized University

or

any other equivalent/recognized qualification notified by the Central Government; and

(ii) has successfully completed training as specified by the Food Authority in a recognized institute or institution approved for the purpose:

(Note:- There is no requirement for training prior to selection. This training shall be provided to the selected candidates during probation period.)

Provided that no person who has financial interest in the manufacture, import or sale of any article of food shall be appointed to be Food Safety Officer under these rules.

2. Working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri Script and knowledge of Rajasthani Culture.”

3. The petitioner has come out with a case that he is possessing Degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) acquired from Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur, which is a recognised University. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of acquiring aforesaid degree of BDS, the petitioner was eligible for participating in the recruitment process initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 05.08.2019.

4. In order to press his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the advertisement, the requirement is that the candidate should possess ‘Degree in Medicine’ and the qualification of BDS possessed by the petitioner falls within the purview of ‘Degree in Medicine’. It has been submitted that the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1956’), prescribes the definition of “medicine”, which lays down that “medicine” means modern scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics, but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that definition of “medicine” given in the Act of 1956 specifically excludes veterinary medicine and surgery. Otherwise, definition of “medicine” is inclusive and covering modern scientific medicine in all its branches. Thus, bare perusal of the definition of “medicine” as provided under the Act of 1956 makes it clear that it, by necessary implication, also includes degree of BDS for all practical purposes and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible on account of possessing requisite educational qualification.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner also filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2005’) before the Centre for Dental Education and Research, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, wherein query made by the petitioner was as to whether dental surgery is a branch of medicine or not and the answer so communicated by the Centre for Dental Education and Research was that, “Yes, Dental surgery is a branch of medicine”. Learned counsel has also referred to one similar reply given by Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Ponducherry, which also confirmed that dental surgery is a separate branch of medicine.

6. Grievance of the petitioner is that desp