Holding

The term 'degree' under the UGC Act includes Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees, and the FSS Rules permit any such degree in the specified subjects, making the appellants qualified for the FSO post.

Summary

The appellants, who held post‑graduate degrees in microbiology, food science and technology, applied for the post of Food Safety Officer (FSO) under a Jharkhand Public Service Commission notification that required a "degree" in specified subjects or a Master’s in Chemistry. After clearing the written exam, they were disqualified on the ground that only a graduate degree, not a master’s degree, satisfied the qualification for subjects other than Chemistry. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, noting that qualification criteria are prescribed exclusively by the Central Government via Section 91, and that the term "degree" is defined in Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 to include Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorate degrees unless expressly excluded. The Court held that the FSS 2011 Rules, as amended in 2022, expressly allow any degree—graduation, post‑graduation or doctorate—in the listed subjects, and that the restriction to only a graduate degree for non‑Chemistry subjects was unsupported. Consequently, the appellants were deemed qualified, the High Court judgments were set aside, and the appellants were directed to be considered from the interview stage of the 2016 recruitment process. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The term 'degree' in the Food Safety and Standards Rules and the recruitment notification—does it restrict qualification to a Bachelor's degree or include Master's and Doctorate degrees?
Whether the Central Government alone has the authority to prescribe qualifications for the post of Food Safety Officer under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Whether the disqualification of candidates holding post‑graduate degrees in subjects other than Chemistry is legally valid.

Legislation cited

Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006s. 37, s. 91, s. 94
Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011s. 2.1.3
University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 22(3)

Subjects

Food Safety OfficerJharkhand Public Service CommissionRecruitment processDisqualificationHigher degreeEducational qualificationMaster’s degreeDegree definitionGolden rule of interpretationLiteral sense

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 129 : 2025 INSC 372

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others
v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others
(Civil Appeal No. 10389 of 2024)
20 March 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the term ‘degree’ as mentioned in the rules and the
recruitment notification for the appointment as Food Safety Officer
(FSO) issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission can
be restricted to “Bachelor’s degree” or whether the same would
cover in its ambit, the “Master’s degree” as well.

Headnotes†
Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 – ss.37, 91 – Food Safety
and Standard Rules, 2011 – 2022 Amendment – University
Grants Commission Act, 1956 – s.22(3) – Disqualification for
possessing higher degree in the subject prescribed under
the advertisement, not proper – Selection for the post of
FSO – Appellants were disqualified from the recruitment
process on the ground that the degrees of post-graduation
held by them in relevant subject(s) did not meet the
qualification criteria in terms of the subject advertisement
which provided that the required degree should be at the
graduate level only – Disqualification upheld by High Court –
Interference with:
Held: Appellants possessing post-graduate degrees in subjects
covered under Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules are qualified
for the post of FSO under the subject advertisement – Under
s.22(3), UGC Act, ‘degree’ means the ‘Bachelor’s Degree’,
‘Master’s Degree’ and the ‘Doctorate Degree’ – Thus, wherever
the word ‘degree’ is used, unless a specific exclusion is provided,
the same would include all three, ‘Bachelor’s Degree’, ‘Master’s
Degree’ and a ‘Doctorate Degree’ – There is no ambiguity

* Author
130 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

whatsoever in the FSS 2011 Rules or the subject advertisement
which can exclude the Master’s degree in subjects referred to
in the preceding part of the Rule 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules,
other than Chemistry, as being a valid qualification – The special
reference to the Master’s degree is given in the said Rule, only
for those who have acquired their degree course in Chemistry
subject, for whom, the minimum qualifying criterion will be a
Master’s degree in Chemistry – However, so far as the other
subjects are concerned, a person having any degree, be it
graduation or post-graduation, would be equally qualified for the
post in question – Impugned judgments set aside – Golden Rule
of Interpretation. [Paras 29, 31, 32, 34, 35]
Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 – ss.37, 91, 94 –
Powers exercised by the Central Government vis-à-vis State
Government – Scope – Discussed – Food Safety and Standard
Rules, 2011. [Paras 24-26]

Case Law Cited
Parvaiz Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others
[2015] 12 SCR 810 : (2015) 17 SCC 709 – relied on.

List of Acts
University Grants Commission Act, 1956; Food Safety and Standard
Act, 2006; Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011.

List of Keywords
Food Safety Officer; Jharkhand Public Service Commission;
Post of FSO in the State of Jharkhand; Recruitment process;
Disqualification; Higher degree; Disqualified during course
of recruitment; Educational qualification; Master’s degree
valid qualification; “degree”; ‘Bachelor’s Degree’; ‘Master’s
Degree’; ‘Doctorate Degree’; Golden rule of interpretation; Literal
sense.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10389 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2023 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No. 244 of 2020
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 131

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Anup Kumar, Vishnu Prabhakar Pathak, Ms. Shruti Singh,
Ms. Pragya Chaudhary, Awanish Gupta, Mrs. Neha Jaiswal,
Shivam Kumar.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Jayant Mohan, Ms. Meenakshi Chatterjee, Ms. Adya Shree Dutta,
Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh, Mrs. Revathy
Raghavan, Ms. Kavya Roy Choudhury, Rohit Gupta.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. The appellants have approached this Court by way of this appeal
seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the candidature
of the appellants for appointment as Food Safety Officers1, pursuant
to the notification dated 7th October, 2015 issued by the Jharkhand
Public Service Commission2 upon the requisition of the State of
Jharkhand.
3. The appellants herein have the qualifications of post-graduation
in science with microbiology, food and technology subjects. They
applied for the post of FSO in pursuance of the Advertisement No.
01/20163 issued by the JPSC wherein the educational qualification
for the said post was stipulated in the terms below: -
“A Degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or
Biotechnology or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science
or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or Microbiology or
Master Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine from
a Recognized University.”

1 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘FSO’.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘JPSC’.
3 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘subject advertisement’.
132 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

4. The appellants were declared successful in the written examination
and were called for interviews by JPSC, however, during the course
of recruitment process, they were disqualified on the ground that the
Master’s degree possessed by the appellants could not be treated
as a valid educational qualification for the purpose of selection to
the post of FSO in the State of Jharkhand.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellants invoked the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court of Jharkhand4 seeking a mandate to the concerned
authorities to conduct the interview of the appellants and to declare
the result. A prayer was also made to direct the respondents to accept
the Master’s degree held by the appellants as a valid qualification
for appointment to the post of FSO, in pursuance to the subject
advertisement. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by
order dated 30th June, 2020.
6. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred an intra court appeal5 to
the Division Bench of the High Court. In the said appeal, respondent
No.8-University Grants Commission6 filed a counter affidavit in the
said proceedings affirming that ‘degree’ would include any degree
in the specified subjects, either Bachelor’s or Master’s. Thereafter,
a supplementary affidavit came to be filed by the UGC, wherein it
was submitted that the degree would mean any such degree which
is previously approved by the Central Government to be specified
in this behalf. The Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal,
preferred by the appellants, vide judgment dated 2nd August, 2023,
holding that the appellants did not possess a degree of graduation in
Food Technology; Dairy Technology; Biotechnology; Oil Technology;
Agriculture Science; Veterinary Sciences; Biochemistry or Microbiology
in terms of the subject advertisement and that the degrees of post-
graduation held by the appellants in the fields of Microbiology/Food
Science and Technology would not meet the qualification criteria in
terms of the subject advertisement. The aforesaid judgment of the
High Court in the intra-court appeal is the subject matter of challenge
in this appeal by special leave.

4 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘High Court’.
5 LPA No. 244 of 2020
6 Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘UGC’.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 133

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others

Submission on behalf of the appellants: -
7. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellants, vehemently and
fervently submitted that in the subject advertisement, the eligibility
criterion stipulated was that the candidate should hold a degree
in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or
Oil Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or
Biochemistry or Microbiology. In addition, it was also provided, in the
subject advertisement, that the candidates having Master’s degree
in Chemistry or degree in medicine from a recognized University
would also be qualified to vie for the post.
8. Learned counsel further urged that the term ‘degree’ as mentioned
in the subject advertisement cannot be given a restrictive meaning
so as to exclude the post-graduation degree in the relevant subjects
from the ambit and scope thereof. He contended that the subject
‘Adulteration of foodstuffs and other goods’, under which the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 20067 has been promulgated, finds place
at Item No. 18 of List-III (Concurrent List), Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution of India.
9. As per Article 246(2) of the Constitution of India, the Parliament as
well as the State Legislatures have concurrent powers to make laws
with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the List III of the
Seventh Schedule.
10. Learned counsel referred to Article 254 of the Constitution of India
and urged that in case of inconsistency between the laws made
under the concurrent list by the Parliament and the State Legislature,
the law enacted by the former will prevail. He further referred to
the FSS Act and urged that sub-section (1) of Section 37 therein
clearly provides that the qualifications for the post of FSOs shall be
prescribed by the Central Government. The State Government’s role
under the FSS Act is limited to authorizing any Officer of the State
Government, having the requisite qualifications in terms of the sub-
section (1) of Section 37, to perform the functions of a FSO within
a specified jurisdiction.

7 The Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (Act No. 34 of 2006). Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘FSS
Act’.
134 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

11. He further contended that sub-section (2) of Section 37 caters to
transitory situations which may occur owing to the non-availability of
regularly selected FSOs. In such a situation, the State Governments
have been given the power to authorise any other Officer, having
requisite qualifications to perform the functions of the FSO.
12. Learned counsel further referred to Section 91 of the FSS Act to urge
that the statute clearly provides that only the Central Government
is competent to make rules for prescribing qualifications for the
post of FSO. The power of the State Government to make rules
is provided under Section 94 of the FSS Act, which is limited only
to the extent of defining the functions and duties to be assigned to
the State Government and the State Commissioner of Food Safety
under the FSS Act, and the rules and regulations made thereunder.
13. Learned counsel also submitted that the term ‘Degree’ as defined
in Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 19568
includes the ‘Bachelor’s Degree’, ‘Master’s Degree’ and ‘Doctorate
Degree’. Thus, wherever any statute or a notification stipulates
‘degree’ as a qualification, the same would cover all the three degrees
i.e., Bachelor’s, Master’s and a Doctorate Degree, within its scope
and ambit. To buttress this contention, learned counsel referred to
the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the UGC, wherein the
Commission has specifically mentioned that the degree in the present
context would be any such degree with the previous approval of the
Central Government.
14. It was further contended that the educational qualification prescribed
for eligibility for the post of FSO in the FSS Act applies uniformly across
the country, including the State of Jharkhand, and the discrimination
sought to be carved out by the respondents in the subject recruitment
process, by giving a different and restricted interpretation to the term
‘degree’, is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
15. Reference was also made by learned counsel for the appellants
to the amendment introduced by the Central Government by virtue
of the Food Safety and Standards (First Amendment) Rules, 2022
wherein it has been specifically provided that the qualification for

8 Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘UGC Act’.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 135

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others

the post of FSO shall be a Bachelor’s or a Master’s or a Doctorate
degree in the aforesaid subjects. As per the learned counsel, this
amendment has been brought around to clear the air in respect of
the confusion prevailing regarding the eligibility criteria for the post
of FSO. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Parvaiz
Ahmad Parry v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others9; to
urge that a candidate possessing a higher degree in the subject
prescribed under the advertisement cannot be disqualified by reason
of ineligibility for not possessing the required degree.
16. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants implored the
Court to accept the appeal, set aside the judgments passed by the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, and
direct the respondents to complete the recruitment process by giving
an opportunity to the appellants to participate in the interview and
to appoint them, with all consequential benefits, if they qualify. In
the alternative, he implored the Court to direct the respondents to
consider the claim of the appellants in the subsequent recruitment
process conducted in the year 2023.

Submission on behalf of the respondents:-
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the
appellants’ counsel. They urged that the appellants participated in the
recruitment process without challenging the conditions set out in the
subject advertisement, which in unequivocable terms provided that
the educational qualification required for the subject posts would be
a degree in Food Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology
or Oil Technology or Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences
or Biochemistry or Microbiology or Master’s degree in Chemistry.
The eligibility of a candidate holding a Master’s degree has been
restricted to only the Chemistry subject in the column of educational
qualifications prescribed in the subject advertisement.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that taking
consideration of the specific qualifications mentioned in the subject
advertisement, the appellants cannot be permitted to expand the
scope of the word ‘degree’ as appearing in the advertisement by

9 (2015) 17 SCC 709
136 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

claiming that the same would also cover a Master’s degree in the
contemporary subjects in contravention to the stipulations as made
in the subject advertisement.
19. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Single Bench
and the Division Bench of the High Court, in rejecting the claims
made by the appellants, do not warrant any interference.

Discussion:-
20. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the bar and have gone through the material placed
on record.
21. It is not in dispute that the appellants laid a claim for the posts in
question by disclosing that they were possessed of Master’s degrees
in Microbiology; Food Science and technology subjects. Thus, there
was no ambiguity or misrepresentation by the appellants regarding
their educational qualification at the time of applying in the subject
recruitment process. The respondent-recruiting authority consciously
accepted the application forms of the appellants and pursuant to their
performance on merit, the appellants were called for an interview.
It is at this stage that the appellants were declared disqualified and
were ousted from the selection process on the premise that they
were holding Master’s degrees in the relevant subject/s, whereas
the rules and the advertisement clearly provided that the required
degree should be at the graduate level only.
22. The statutory provisions governing the qualifications and service
conditions for the post of FSO are Sections 37, 91 and 94 of the
FSS Act, which are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“37. Food Safety Officer.
(1) The Commissioner of Food Safety shall, by
notification, appoint such persons as he thinks
fit, having the qualifications prescribed by the
Central Government, as Food Safety Officers
for such local areas as he may assign to them
for the purpose of performing functions under
this Act and the rules and regulations made
thereunder.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 137

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others

(2) The State Government may authorise any
officer of the State Government having the
qualifications prescribed under sub-section (1)
to perform the functions of a Food Safety Officer
within a specified jurisdiction.
91. Power of Central Government to make rules.
(1) The Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying
out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules
may provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely:-
(a) salary, terms and conditions of service of
Chairperson and Members other than ex officio
Members under subsection (2) and the manner
of subscribing to an oath of office and secrecy
under sub-section (3) of section 7;
(b) qualifications of Food Safety Officer under
sub-section (1) of section 37;
(c) the manner of taking the extract of documents
seized under sub-clause (8) of section 38;
(d) determination of cases for referring to
appropriate courts and time-frame for such
determination under sub-section (4) of section 42;
(e) qualifications of Food Analysts under
section 45;
(f) the manner of sending sample for analysis
and details of the procedure to be followed in
this regard under subsection (1) of section 47;
(g) the procedure to be followed in adjudication
of cases under sub-section (1) of section 68;
(h) qualifications, terms of office, resignation
and removal of Presiding Officer under
sub-section (4), the procedure of appeal and
138 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

powers of Tribunal under sub-section (5) of
section 70;
(i) any other matter relating to procedure and
powers of Tribunal under clause (g) of sub-
section (2) of section 71;
(j) the fee to be paid for preferring an appeal to
the High Court under subsection (1) of section
76;
(k) form and time of preparing budget under
sub-section (1) of section 81;
(l) form and statement of accounts under sub-
section (1) of section 83;
(m) the form and time for preparing annual
report by Food Authority under sub-section (1)
of section 84; and
(n) any other matter which is required to be,
or may be, prescribed or in respect of which
provision is to be made by rules by the Central
Government.
94. Power of State Government to make rules
(1) Subject to the powers of the Central
Government and the Food Authority to make
rules and regulations respectively, the State
Government may, after previous publication
and with the previous approval of the Food
Authority, by notification in the Official Gazette,
make rules to carry out the functions and
duties assigned to the State Government and
the State Commissioner of Food Safety under
this Act and the rules and regulations made
thereunder.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such rules may
provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:—
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 139

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others

(a) other functions of the Commissioner
of Food Safety under clause (f) of sub-
section (2) of section 30;
(b) earmarking a fund and the manner
in which reward shall be paid to
a person rendering assistance in
detection of offence or apprehension
of offender under section 95; and
(c) any other matter which is required
to be, or may be prescribed or
in respect of which provision is
to be made by rules by the State
Government.
(3) Every rule made by the State Government
under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be
after it is made, before each House of the State
Legislature where it consists of two Houses or
where such State Legislature consists of one
House, before that House.”
23. A bare perusal of Section 37(1) of the FSS Act, makes it clear that
the appointment of a FSO is to be made by the Commissioner of
Food Safety, and the candidates should be having the qualification
“prescribed by the Central Government for such post.” (emphasis
supplied)
24. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 37, the State Government has
been given the limited power to appoint any other officer of the State
Government, having the qualification prescribed under Sub-Section
(1), to perform the functions of the FSO within a specified jurisdiction.
25. The plain language of the statute makes it clear that the prescription
of qualification for the post of FSO is within the exclusive domain
of the Central Government and the power to appoint is given to the
Commissioner of Food Safety.
26. The language of Section 91(2)(b) of the FSS Act, fortifies the said
conclusion, that the power to prescribe educational criterion for
the post of FSO lies exclusively with the Central Government. The
heading of the Section 91 is ‘Power of Central Government to make
rules’. Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 91 refers to the qualifications of
140 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the FSO under Sub-Section (1) of Section 37. Neither in the Act nor
in the Rules, has the State Government been given the authority to
frame the rules to prescribe the qualifications for the post of FSO.
Section 94 of the FSS Act, which talks about the power of the State
Government to make rules is restricted in its operation and gives a
limited role to the State Government to frame rules for carrying out
the functions and duties assigned to the State Government and the
State Commissioner of Food Safety under the FSS Act, the rules
and the regulations made thereunder. Thus, the scope of powers to
be exercised by the State Government is limited only to the extent of
formulating the modalities for carrying out the functions and duties
assigned to the FSO under the FSS Act. Clearly thus, the FSS Act
does not permit the State Government to transgress into the field of
prescribing the qualifications for the posts of FSO, which lies within
the exclusive domain of the Central Government.
27. The Central Government, while exercising powers under Section 91
of the FSS Act notified the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 201110
wherein, the educational qualifications for the post of the FSO have
been provided as under: -
“2.1.3: Food Safety Officer
1. Qualification: Food Safety Officer shall be a whole time
officer and shall, on the date on which he is so appointed
possesses the following:
(i) a degree in Food Technology or Dairy
Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology
or Agricultural Science or Veterinary Sciences
or Bio-Chemistry or Microbiology or Master’s
Degree in Chemistry or degree in medicine from
a recognized University, or
(ii) any other equivalent/recognized qualification
notified by the Central Government, and
(iii) has successfully completed training as
specified by the Food Authority in a recognized
institute or Institution approved for the purpose.

10 Hereinafter being referred to as the ‘FSS 2011 Rules’.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 141

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others

Provided that no person who has any financial interest in
the manufacture, import or sale of any article of food shall
be appointed to be a Food Safety Officer under this rule.”
28. These very rules have been adopted by the State of Jharkhand
mutatis mutandis. It is in this background, that we are required to
adjudicate whether the term ‘degree’ as mentioned in the rules and
the recruitment notification can be restricted to “Bachelor’s degree”
or whether the same would cover in its ambit, the “Master’s degree”
as well.
29. The term ‘degree’ is defined under Section 22(3) the UGC Act, which
states that the ‘degree’ means the ‘Bachelor’s Degree’, ‘Master’s
Degree’ and the ‘Doctorate Degree’. Thus, wherever the word ‘degree’
is used, unless a specific exclusion is provided, the same would
include within its scope and ambit all three, ‘Bachelor’s Degree’,
‘Master’s Degree’ and a ‘Doctorate Degree’.
30. In the present case, the respondents have disqualified the appellants
on account of the fact that they hold Master’s degree in different
subjects whereas, as per Clause 2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules (supra)
and the subject advertisement, the educational qualification of a
master’s degree is only recognized in “Chemistry” subject, whereas
for all the other subjects, only a graduation degree would be the
qualifying criterion.
31. We feel that there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the FSS 2011
Rules or the subject advertisement which can exclude the Master’s
degree in subjects referred to in the preceding part of the Rule 2.1.3
of the FSS 2011 Rules (supra), other than Chemistry, as being a
valid qualification. The special reference to the Master’s degree is
given in the said Rule, only for those who have acquired their degree
course in Chemistry subject, for whom, the minimum qualifying
criterion will be a Master’s degree in Chemistry. However, so far as
the other subjects are concerned, a person having any degree, be
it graduation or post-graduation, would be equally qualified for the
post in question.
32. Reading the language of the statutory provision in a literal sense
and applying the golden rule of interpretation, this is the only logical
and permissible interpretation. Hence, we have no hesitation in
concluding that if a candidate, having undertaken a degree course
142 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in “Chemistry” subject, desires to apply for the post of FSO, he must
possess a master’s degree in that subject. However, if a candidate
has taken college education in the subjects of food technology;
dairy technology; biotechnology; oil technology; agricultural science;
veterinary science; biochemistry or microbiology, then such a
candidate would be qualified for the FSO post, if he holds any one
of the degrees, i.e., either graduation, post-graduation or doctorate
degree in any of these subjects. There is no logic or rationale behind
excluding the candidates having master’s or a doctorate degree in
these subjects from staking a claim to the post of FSO because such
an interpretation would be totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
33. It is also pertinent to note that, in order to remove the prevailing
confusion, the Central Government has amended the ‘Food Safety
and Standard Rules’ in the year 2022 by providing that the ‘Bachelor’s
Degree’ or a ‘Master’s Degree’ or a ‘Doctorate Degree’ in Food
Technology or Dairy Technology or Biotechnology or Oil Technology
or Agriculture Science or Veterinary Sciences or Biochemistry or
Microbiology or Master’s Degree in Chemistry or Degree in Medicine
would be a valid qualification for the post of FSO.
34. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants, who
possessed post-graduate degrees in subjects covered under Clause
2.1.3 of the FSS 2011 Rules (reproduced supra), were definitely
and unquestionably qualified for the post of FSO under the subject
advertisement. The judgment in the case of Parvaiz Ahmad Parry
(supra), relied upon by the appellants, covers the controversy on
all fours. Hence, the impugned judgments, dated 2nd August, 2023
of the Division Bench of the High Court and 30th June, 2023 of the
learned Single Bench of the High Court, do not stand to scrutiny
and are liable to be set aside.

Conclusion: -
35. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in the following manner: -
i. The impugned judgments rendered by the Division Bench and
the Single Bench, holding that the appellants were not qualified
for the post of FSO, are quashed and set aside.
ii. The prayer made by the appellants to appear in the interview
under the Advertisement No. 18 of 2023 dated 15th June, 2023
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 143

Chandra Shekhar Singh and Others v.
The State of Jharkhand and Others

issued by JPSC, cannot be acceded to as they did not apply
under this advertisement.
iii. In order to do complete justice, and in case vacancies do not
exist in the recruitment process 2016, then the respondents shall
create supernumerary posts to accommodate the appellants who
shall be allowed to partake in the recruitment process from the
stage they were disqualified, i.e., from the interview stage. In
case after undergoing interviews, the appellants succeed and
are placed at par or higher in merit as compared to the last
successful candidate in the particular category, they shall be
offered appointment which shall be effective from the date of
publication of the first select list in the recruitment process 2016.
We further clarify that since the selected candidates were never
impleaded and heard in the proceedings before the High Court
or in this Court, appropriate direction has to be given to ensure
that their seniority position is not disturbed at this belated stage.
It is, therefore, provided that the successful candidates from
amongst the appellants shall be placed below the last candidate
selected and appointed in the subject selection process.
iv. It is further clarified that in case the appellants succeed and
are offered appointment, they shall not be entitled to back
wages. However, they shall be entitled to all service benefits
on a notional basis.
36. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey