AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed by the appellant who is Intervener in W.P.No.8485/14 aggrieved by an order dated 25.7.2014 passed in the aforesaid writ petition.
Facts, in nutshell, go to show that respondent no. 4 Shri S.P. Shrivastava was initially appointed as a Food Inspector vide order passed by the State Government on 2.7.1997. The petitioner and one organization namely Nagrik Upbhokta Margdarshak Manch challenged this appointment of respondent no. 4 Shri S.P. Shrivastava as a Food Inspector mainly on the ground that he is not qualified to be appointed to the said post and when the said W.P.No.3031/14 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this court on 2.2.2005 it was pointed out by learned Government Advocate that the impugned order dated 2.7.1997 appointing Shri S.P. Shrivastaba as a Food Inspector has been withdrawn by the State Government on 14.1.2005. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous and liberty was granted to Shri S.P. Shrivastava to challenge notification dated 14.1.2005. However, nothing was done for a period of about 9 years and thereafter, it seems that again after the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 came into force, Shri S.P. Shrivastava was appointed as a Food Inspector on 2.6.2014 vide Annexure-P/10 available in the record of writ petition. Subsequently, when it was found that Shri S.P.Shrivastava has not undergone training and he cannot be posted as a Food Inspector, then the matter came up to this Court at the instance of Shri S.P. Shrivastava in W.P.No.8485/14 and when this writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Writ Court on 25.7.2014, statement was made by the learned Government Advocate that steps will be taken for sending Shri S.P. Shrivastava for training and notification will be issued at the earliest. Even though, this order was passed on 25.7.2014, Shri S.P. Shrivastava being aggrieved by the same had filed a writ appeal no. 615/14 and when writ appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 14.8.2014 it was found that Shri S.P. Shrivastava has obtained the aforesaid training as required and his case was under consideration for permitting him to work as a Food Inspector. Accordingly, on 14.8.2014 writ appeal was also disposed of directing the State Government to take action for permitting Shri S.P. Shrivastava to work as a Food Safety Officer within a period of 30 days. It now transpires that after the subsequent order passed in the writ appeal on 14.8.2014, action has been taken for appointing Shri S.P. Shrivastava and permitting him to work as a Food Safety Officer. Be that as it may be, grievance of the present appellant who was intervener in W.P.No.8485/2014 that Shri S.P. Shrivastava is not entitled to work as a Food Safety Officer. It is pointed out that he does not fulfill the requisite qualification and criteria laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act and the rules framed thereunder and therefore, his appointment itself is unsustainable.
The appellant herein is intervener. He has never challenged the order of appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava passed in the year 2014. If the appellant feels that appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava / respondent no. 4 as a Food Safety Officer is contrary to the statutory provisions, he is required to challenge the same in accordance with law where all the questions can be considered and decision taken. In the present proceedings which are arising out of the order dated 25.7.2014 passed in W.P.No.8485/14, where appellant herein is only a intervener and as a intervener he cannot seek any relief for them from this Court. That being so, without challenging the order of appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava no relief can be granted to the present appellant in these proceedings. That apart, it may be taken note that during the course of hearing of the present writ appeal, Shri R.K. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 raised objection to say that the appellant Association is an Association of retired Food Inspectors and they have filed a writ petition mala fide and he tried to justify the appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava as a Food Safety Officer. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that since the appellant being an intervener in these proceedings cannot go behind the question of justification, tenability, legality or otherwise of the order of appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava. If the appellant has any grievance with regard to appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava, he is required to challenge the same in accordance with law only in those proceedings question can be considered. For the present, finding no case is made out at the instance of the appellant herein, this appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to take fresh steps, in case, he has any grievance with regard to appointment of Shri S.P. Shrivastava, in accordance with law.
Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid.