JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned selection list of the 1st respondent in Notification No. 02/MRB/2021 dated 16/02/23 and quash the same and further directing the 1st respondent to publish a fresh selection list by considering the candidature of the petitioners. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned selection list of the 1st respondent in Notification No. 02/MRB/2021 dated 16/02/23 and quash the same and further directing the 1st respondent to publish a fresh Selection list by considering the candidature of the petitioner. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned provisional selection list of the 1st respondent in Notification No. 02/MRB/2021 dated 13/03/23 and quash the same and further directing the 1st respondent to publish a fresh Selection list by considering the candidature of the petitioner. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the impugned list of candidates published on 13.03.2023 by the 1st respondent, relating to the post of Food Safety Officer in connection with the selection process for the notification no. 02/MRB/2021 published on 13.03.2023 by the 1st respondent for the posts of Food Safety Officer quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to allow only the candidate those who have completed their education i.e 1st to 10th Std, 12th Std, Bachelors of Siddha Medicine and Surgery (BSMS) Degree through tamil medium to avail PSTM quota, including the petitioners and proceed with the selection based on such new list, within the stipulated time period and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper for the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the respondent pertaining to the impugned list of candidates published on 13.03.2023 by the 1st respondent, relating to the post of Food Safety Officer in connection with the selection process for the notification no. 02/MRB/2021 published on 13.03.2023 by the 1st respondent for the post of Food Safety Officer quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to allow only the candidate those who have completed their education i.e 1st to 10th Std, 12th Std, Bachelors of Siddha Medicine and Surgery (BSMS) Degree through tamil medium to avail PSTM quota, including the petitioners and proceed with the selection based on such new list, within the stipulated time period and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper for the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned list of ineligible candidates bearing No.02/MRB/2021 dated 13.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same in so far as petitioner is concerned which is in S.No.4, MRB No.17, Roll No. 201045537 and Reg. No.109987 and consequently direct the respondents to issue order of appointment to the petitioner as Food Safety Officer in the general category pursuant to the recruitment vide notification No. 02/MRB/2021 dated 13.10.2021. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned list of ineligible candidates bearing No.02/MRB/2021 dated 13.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same in so far as petitioner is concerned which is in S.No.15, MRB No.147, Roll No. 201020389 and Reg. No.113628 and consequently direct the respondents to issue order of appointment to the petitioner as Food Safety Officer in the general category of SC pursuant to the recruitment vide notification No. 02/MRB/2021 dated 13.10.2021.) Common Order: Shiv Visvanathan''s “The Necessity of Knowledge Panchayats” published in the centre page of today''s “The New Indian Express” looks at cognitive justice as dialogue among different systems of knowledge. The illustrious essayist is Nobel laureate S.Chandrasekhar''s nephew. The illustrious essayist is Nobel laureate S.Chandrasekhar''s nephew. Should a tribal be considered a repository of botanical knowledge of trees and plants helping maintain the diversity or treated as illiterate and ignorant?. The article refers to indigenista movement in Brazil. The linear idea of development has to give way to cyclical and cosmological time. The author''s thoughts found resonance in me because I have already read and re-read Ashis Nandy''s ''Alternative sciences'' which analyses aspects of the lives of two Indian pioneers of science: physicist and plant physiologist Jagadis Chandra Bose and mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan. I was also reminded of Nammalvar who passed away recently and who was respected more than any agro-scientist having university degree. 2. Shiv Visvanathan and Ashis Nandy have helped me to resolve the issue of interpretation raised in these writ petitions. Justice Markandeya Katju used to rhetorically ask : Why only Maxwell, why not Mimamsa ?. I wish to add respectfully that solutions to knotty legal problems can lie in the intersectional region of law and philosophy. 3. Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB), Chennai issued notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer on temporary basis in Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department. The petitioners are holders of degree in Siddha medicine/BDS. They are medical practitioners. The applications submitted by the petitioners were accepted and they were issued with hall tickets. They wrote the written examination held on 20.12.2022. However, the selection list published by the Board did not contain their names. They came to know that graduates in Siddha medicine/BDS were not considered. That led to the filing of these writ petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavits filed in support of these writ petitions. They called upon this Court to quash the impugned list and direct the board to publish a fresh selection list by considering the candidature of the petitioners. 5. The Board has filed its counter affidavit. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State as well as the Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Central Government submitted that the issue now raised was considered by other High Courts, already and that in the light of the orders passed by them, the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State as well as the Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the Central Government submitted that the issue now raised was considered by other High Courts, already and that in the light of the orders passed by them, the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 6. I carefully considered the rival contentions. The educational qualification prescribed for the post of Food Safety Officer is as follows : “A Bachelor''s 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 a Bachelor''s degree in medicine from a University recognised by the University Grants Commission.” The stand of the respondents is that “Bachelor''s degree in medicine” would refer only to modern scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics. According to them, it refers to MBBS degree and not other systems of medicine such as Siddha. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India have issued clarification in this regard on 12.10.2022. 7. The clarification provided by the said Authority is as follows : The above clarification only reiterates the position laid down by the Hon''ble Allahabad High Court. What has been produced before me is only a copy of the interim order dated 27.01.2015 in Writ Application No.2754 of 2015. It was argued before the learned Judge that the expression “degree of medicine” would include other systems of medicine as defined under Section 2(e) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and under Section 2(d) of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. The learned Judge noted that the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was enacted by the Parliament and the Food Safety Rules were framed by the Central Government. All the statutes are Central enactments and “medicine” has been defined only under the Medical Council Act, 1956. Therefore, the definition set out in the 2006 FSSA Act should be understood in the light of the definition found in the 1956 Act. The reasoning of the learned Judge is found in the following paragraphs : “Had the Central Government intended to include, other systems of medicines, within the meaning of ''degree of medicine'' as defined under the Food Safety Rules, the same would have been clarified. The reasoning of the learned Judge is found in the following paragraphs : “Had the Central Government intended to include, other systems of medicines, within the meaning of ''degree of medicine'' as defined under the Food Safety Rules, the same would have been clarified. The degree in ''Indian Medicine'' or ''Homeopathy'' cannot be said to be ''degree in medicine'' or its equivalent. Since the rule is unambiguous and clearly states ''degree in medicine'' and does not include any other system of medicine, it would not be proper for this court to include or read any other degree awarded by the councils under other Acts referred above into the definition of ''medicine''. Medicine is defined only under the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and not in the other enactments dealing with Indian Medicine viz. Indian Medicine Council Act 1970 and Homeopathy Act 1973, this is also evident from the qualification/degree as specified in the Schedule of the respective Acts.” Though the aforesaid order is entitled to great respect, it is obvious that it is not binding on me. It was only an interim order. The reasons set out in an interim order cannot have any precedential value. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General as well as the Dy.Solicitor General of India contended that the essential qualification for appointment to a post is a matter to be exclusively dealt with by the employer and that the writ court ought not to interfere in the matter. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2020 (2) RlW 1352 (Rajnish Sharma v. State of Rajasthan). This case though relating to the post of Food Safety Officer does not have any bearing on the question raised in these writ petitions. The proposition laid down is beyond cavil. 9. Section 2(f) of The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is as follows : “''medicine'' means modern scientific medicine in all its branches and includes surgery and obstetrics, but does not include veterinary medicine and surgery”. The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 also retains the very same definition as is evident from Section 2(j) thereof. 10. Section 37 of FSSAI Act 2006 is as follows : “37. Food Safety Officer. The National Medical Commission Act, 2019 also retains the very same definition as is evident from Section 2(j) thereof. 10. Section 37 of FSSAI Act 2006 is as follows : “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. (2) The State Government may authorise any officer of the State Government having the qualifications prescribed under subsection (1) to perform the functions of a Food Safety Officer within a specified jurisdiction.” Rule 2.1.3 of Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 sets out the qualification for Food Safety Officer. It is as follows: “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 Masters 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. 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.” The stand of the respondents is that the definition of the term “medicine” as found in Section 2(f) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 must be imported into the aforesaid Rule prescribing qualification for the post of Food Safety Officer. The stand of the petitioners is that a wider meaning should be given and that the term “medicine” set out in Rule 2.1.3 of FSS Rules, 2011 would include Indian system of medicine also. 11. If the FSS Act, 2006 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are in pari materia or if there is a broad overlap of the statutory schemes underlying them, then, the definition found in the earlier Act can be imported into the later Act. That is clearly not the case here. 11. If the FSS Act, 2006 and the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 are in pari materia or if there is a broad overlap of the statutory schemes underlying them, then, the definition found in the earlier Act can be imported into the later Act. That is clearly not the case here. Central Act 102 of 1956 provides for the reconstitution of the Medical Council of India and the maintenance of a medical register for India and for matters connected therewith. Central Act 34 of 2006 is meant to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. I do not find anything common between the two statutes. Hence, it would not be proper to narrowly construe the qualification set out in Rule 2.1.3 in the light of Section 2(f) of the Central Act 102 of 1956. Nothing stopped the Central Government to couch the text of Rule 2.1.3 of FSS Rules, 2011 by referring to the definition set out in Section 2(f) of the Central Act 102 of 1956. The Rule does not exclude the Indian system of medicine. When the statutory Rule is generally worded, it is not for the writ court to narrow down its scope. 12. There is a linguistic exercise known as “parsing”. I will now parse Rule 2.1.3 : “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 Masters Degree in Chemistry or degree in medicine from a recognized University.” I am not able to find any common denominator among the qualifications prescribed above. Section 2(f) of Central Act 102 of 1956 specifically excludes veterinary medicine and surgery. But Rule 2.1.3 states that holders of degree in Veterinary Sciences are eligible. The Rule is broad and sweeping. It virtually declares that any science or medical graduate is eligible to become Food Safety Officer. Otherwise, the category excluded in Section 2(f) of the Central Act 102 of 1956 will not be included in the Rule. The expression “degree in medicine” cannot therefore be given a restrictive meaning. The Rule is broad and sweeping. It virtually declares that any science or medical graduate is eligible to become Food Safety Officer. Otherwise, the category excluded in Section 2(f) of the Central Act 102 of 1956 will not be included in the Rule. The expression “degree in medicine” cannot therefore be given a restrictive meaning. “Medicine” has been defined in Oxford Advanced Learner''s Dictionary as follows : “the study and treatment of diseases and injuries : advances in modern medicine – to study/practice medicine / traditional / conventional / orthodox medicine : alternative medicine.” It has been defined in Cambridge Dictionary as follows : “The science or practice of the treatment and prevention of disease. A substance taken by mouth in order to treat or prevent disease. Origin Latin medicus ''physician''.” 13. Since there is no common denominator in the eligibility qualifications prescribed in the 2011 Rules, I hold that the expression “degree in medicine'' should be understood expansively. Medical degree awarded by recognized University would fall within the sweep of the Rule. Siddha system of medicine is unique to Tamil Nadu. It is part of Tamil Culture. Earlier, every temple in Tamil Nadu would have a functioning Siddha dispensary attached to it. I do not know if that is still the current position. I take judicial notice of the fact that the department of Siddha is undertaking researches. During Covid crisis, the role played by the Siddha doctors cannot be lost sight of. When Dengue struck us, the Government itself promoted Nilavembu Kashayam. Disqualifying a Siddha degree holder in the selection process tantamounts to branding Siddha system as un-modern. Any system of knowledge can be dynamic. Any system may be ancient or modern. The question is whether it is up to date and relevant to our requirements. It is in the hands of the practitioners to keep a system of knowledge alive. It is for the government of Tamil Nadu to ensure that Siddha system of medicine remains current. 14. The modern age starts from the age of reason. We date it back to 16th Century. Though the subsequent developments can be termed modern, we will reject them as outdated and archaic if they are not up to date. It is on account of linear approach, we arbitrarily talk of ancient and modern. In a sense, nothing is ancient and nothing is modern. We date it back to 16th Century. Though the subsequent developments can be termed modern, we will reject them as outdated and archaic if they are not up to date. It is on account of linear approach, we arbitrarily talk of ancient and modern. In a sense, nothing is ancient and nothing is modern. Everything depends on whether the system of knowledge or practice is a functioning reality. I hold that the expression “medicine” obviously includes Siddha system of medicine. Since it is a functioning system and there are siddha practitioners, it deserves to be called as modern also. The Government is running siddha medical colleges. They have been duly recognized. The syllabus and course content indicate that the endeavour is to keep the students abreast of the modern developments. During the recent past, to gain entry into medical course, one has to clear an eligibility test known as “NEET”. It is stated that for pursuing any medical course namely, MBBS, BDS or Siddha, one has to pass “NEET”. The expression “degree in medicine” would include not only degree in Siddha medicine but also BDS. BDS is also a system of medicine dealing with dentistry. It is a recognized modern system also. I therefore hold that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for the post of “Food Safety Officer”. The impugned selection list is quashed to the extent it excludes the petitioners. The respondents shall consider the petitioners also and issue a revised selection list. 15. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.