ORDER : 1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs :- "(i) The impugned recruitment advertisement dated 21.10.2022 (Annex.2) may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The recruitment process so initiated by the respondent RPSE through the advertisement dated 21.10.2022 (Annexure-2) may also be declared illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent RPSE further may be directed to undertake the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule of 2011 and amended rules of 1965. (iv) The respondent RPSE may kindly be restrained from appointing any person who is not otherwise not possessing the entire eligibility qualification as prescribed under the Rules of 2011 as well as amended Rules of 1965." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the recruitment process was undertaken in pursuance of the advertisement dated 21.10.2022 issued by the respondent RPSC for appointment on the post of Food Safety Officer inter alia on the ground that the relaxation regarding the eligibility qualification prescribed under the Rules is being relaxed by the respondent RPSC in violation of the provision of recruitment rules as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to Section 91 of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 (in short, ‘Act of 2006’) whereby the Central Government has framed the Food Safety and Standard Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2011’), which came into force on 05.08.2011. 3.1 Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 provided for the qualification for the post of Food Safety Officer, the relevant part of the Rule 2.1.3 (i) of the Rules of 2011 reads as follows :- "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 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 2. On the date of commencement of these Rules, a person who has already been appointed as a Food Inspector under the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, may perform the duties of the Food Safety Officer if notified by the state/Central government if the officer fulfills such other conditions as may be prescribed for the post of Food Safety Officer by the State Government. 3. State Government may, in cases where a Medical Officer of health administration of local area has been performing the function of food inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, assign the powers and duties of Food Safety Officer to such Medical Officer in charge of health administration of that area. Provided further that the persons appointed under Clauses 2 and 3 above, shall undergo a specialized training laid down by the Food Authority within a period of two years from the commencement of these rules." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the State Government has issued a notification dated 25.07.2018 and notified the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules (IV Amendment) Rules, 2018, in which, the eligibility qualification for recruitment to the post of Food Safety Officer was prescribed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the condition of eligibility and successful completion of training should be fulfilled in accordance with the Rules of 2011 as well as amended Rules of 1965, but the same has not been followed in the present recruitment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter taken this Court to the advertisement dated 21.10.2022 issued by respondent-RPSC, which is Annex.2, in which, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to education qualification, which is noted as follows :- "1 (i) A degree in Food Technology or Diary 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 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. 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 candidate during probation period)" 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that such note of having no requirement of training prior to selection is contrary to the rules and thus same cannot be accepted. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Rajnish Sharma & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.12076/2018) decided on 15.01.2020; the para 12 of the said judgment, which is relevant, reads as under:- "12. A bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act of 2006, makes it abundantly clear that any person not possessing the qualification as prescribed by the Central Government cannot be appointed by the Commissioner on the post of Food Safety Officer for the purpose of performing the functions under the Act of 2006 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder. Further, by virtue of provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 37, the State Government also cannot authorise any officer of the State Government to perform the function of Food Safety Officer within a specified jurisdiction unless he possesses the requisite qualification prescribed by the Central Government for recruitment on the said post. Thus, after coming into force of the Rules of 2011, neither any person can be appointed on the post of Food Safety Officer nor any officer of the State Government could be authorised to perform the functions of the Food Safety Officer, who does not possess the qualification prescribed under Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 55, relevant para 27 of the said judgment reads as under :- "27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. State of Rajasthan reported in (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 55, relevant para 27 of the said judgment reads as under :- "27. Any part of the advertisement which is contrary to the statutory rules has to give way to the statutory prescription. Thus, looking to the qualification prescribed in the statutory rules, the appellant fulfills the qualification and after being selected for the post denying appointment to him is arbitrary and illegal. It is well settled that when there is variance in the advertisement and in the statutory rules, it is the statutory rules which take precedence. In this context, reference is made in the judgment of this Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission?. Para 21 of the judgment lays down the above proposition which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 512) "21. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1-7-2001 and f 1-7-2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the Rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules." 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the respondent-RPSC is not a contesting party in the present case. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State however submits that they had sought clarification from the competent authority on 03.08.2018, in which, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India was asked by the Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur whether such training should be conducted before selection, and thereafter, the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India gave the following answer :- "In this regard, it is clarified that training as specified in Rule 2.1.3. (iii) of FSS Rules, 2011, the candidates once selected for the post of FSO will have to undergo training successfully as specified by the Food Authority in a recognized Institute or Institution approved for the purpose during the period of probation. There is no requirement for training prior to selection." 12. Learned counsel for the respondents thus, submits that the respondents are bound by the direction given by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India, but could not satisfy this Court in specific terms that the completion of training prior to appointment is not the necessary qualification, as per the law governing the field. Moreover, completion of training for the purpose of appointment has been clearly prescribed in the Rules itself. 13. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as aforementioned cited case laws, finds that the advertisement was issued by the respondent-RPSC on 21.10.2022 for the purpose of appointment on the post of Food Safety Officer. The said post was governed by the Rules of 2011, which was drawn by the Central Government in pursuance of the power exercised under Section 91 of the Act of 2006. The Rule 2.1.3 of the Rules of 2011 requires that the person appearing for appointment on the post of Food Safety Officer should have successfully completed the training as specified by the authority concerned, which is already reproduced hereinabove. 14. This Court also finds that in pursuance to the subsequent Central Rules, State Government has also amended its rules vide notification dated 25.07.2018 in the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (Amendment 2018), amended Schedule-I, in which, the existing serial number 3(a) and 3(b) and entries thereto stood substituted as follows: 3. (a) Senior Secondary Inspector 100 % Sanitary Inspector 5 years' experience on the post of Sanitary Inspector (b) Food Safety Officer 100% (i) A degree in Food Technology or Diary 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 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 . 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 . Thus, the words 'successful completion' denote that at the time of appointment, the person has to fulfill the complete eligibility and necessary qualification criteria and he should have completed the training, as specified for the said purpose. 15. This Court also takes note of the fact that on the date on which, the petitioner was to be appointed, he should have possessed the necessary qualification. As per learned counsel for the respondent, it was open for the respondent to have construed the rules in question and thus, the respondent had sought clarification from the concerned Central Body, who, in turn, has clarified that the training can be held in pursuance of Rule 2.1.3 1(iii) of Rules of 2006, once the candidate is selected for the post of Food Safety Officer and thereafter it can be undergone successfully as specified by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India in a recognized institute. 16. This Court also finds that the precedent law of Rajnish Sharma (supra) and Ashish Kumar (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are completely covering the field in question. The Rule 2.1.3 has been binding because it requires the candidate to complete the necessary qualification at the time of selection. The Rule 2.1.3 which has already been reproduced above clearly stipulates that the candidates have to successfully complete the training as specified by the competent authority. The necessary amendments made in pursuance of Rule 2.1.3 by the State Government vide notification dated 25.07.2018 in the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, also fortifies the same, as the same requirements have been incorporated by the State Government as well whereby the successful completion of training was a necessary qualification for the Food Safety Officer. 17. The necessary amendments made in pursuance of Rule 2.1.3 by the State Government vide notification dated 25.07.2018 in the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965, also fortifies the same, as the same requirements have been incorporated by the State Government as well whereby the successful completion of training was a necessary qualification for the Food Safety Officer. 17. This Court thus finds that the advertisement and the clarification issued by the respondent on 21.10.2022 in its educational qualification has included a note which clarifies that there is no requirement for training prior to the selection, which is totally contrary to the rules in question whether Central or State, and thus, there cannot be a second interpretation of the rules when the same is specific and clear, thus, no space for interpretation by any of the authority to give a different meaning to the legislative action can be permitted. 18. In view of the above, the advertisement dated 21.10.2022 to the extent of note in question is quashed and set aside. However, the respondents shall be free to conduct the recruitment for the post of Food Safety Officer strictly in accordance with rules, and thus, the condition of possessing the essential qualification including training at the requisite date shall be adhered to. 19. The present petition is accordingly partly allowed. All pending applications stand disposed of.