Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000295-000295 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 21166/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on State recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309, Constitution of India |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024) |
| Type of Law | Public employment / administrative law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The State of Bihar framed recruitment rules (2014) prescribing 10+2 (Science) + Diploma in Pharmacy (with note that B.Pharma/M.Pharma “may apply” only if they also hold the Diploma). Successive amendments (2017, 2019, 2024) preserved the Diploma requirement. B.Pharma/M.Pharma degree-holders without Diploma challenged exclusion in Patna High Court; single judge allowed inclusion, division bench reversed, and the Supreme Court upheld the division bench. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All State Governments framing recruitment rules under Article 309; all subordinate courts hearing service-rule challenges |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and tribunals dealing with public-service eligibility criteria in technical and medical cadres |
| Distinguishes | Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission (2010 15 SCC 596) – where Rules expressly deemed higher qualifications to presuppose lower qualification |
| Follows | J&K Service Selection Recruitment Board & Anr. v. Basit Aslam Wani & Ors. (SLPs dismissed 05.03.2021) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirmation that the proviso to Article 309 empowers States to prescribe minimum qualifications for public‐service cadres, subject only to limited judicial review on arbitrariness or fundamental‐rights grounds.
- Clarifies that central professional‐regulation statutes (Pharmacy Act, 1948; Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015) do not confer a right to State public employment or constrain the State’s choice of eligibility criteria.
- Emphasises that Diploma and Degree in Pharmacy have distinct curricular objectives and training components; a Degree does not automatically presuppose the Diploma unless the recruitment rules so stipulate.
- Endorses that exclusion of higher‐degree holders (unless diploma‐qualified) is not arbitrary if the State articulates a rational nexus—here, 500 hours of hospital training specific to Diploma holders.
- Lawyers challenging service rules must show either legislative incompetence, arbitrariness lacking rational nexus, or violation of fundamental rights—not mere policy disagreement.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Pharmacy Act & Regulations: The Act (Sec. 10, 18, 42) and 2015 Regulations govern professional standards and registration but do not guarantee public-service appointment.
- No Repugnancy: Cadre Rules operate in recruitment domain under Art. 309; Act/Regulations govern professional qualification. Repugnancy requires direct conflict or occupying the same field.
- Employer’s Exclusive Domain: Under Article 309, States decide minimum qualifications; judicial review limited to arbitrariness or rights violations. Precedents (Patna High Court, J&K High Court, Supreme Court) affirm this principle.
- Distinct Qualifications: Curriculum comparison shows Diploma in Pharmacy mandates 500 hours of hospital-based training, unlike B.Pharma/M.Pharma’s 150 hours; lateral‐entry provisions do not render degrees “higher presupposing” Diplomas.
- Rational Nexus & Non-Arbitrariness: State’s policy to select Diploma holders for public health roles reflects experiential and functional considerations, satisfying Articles 14 and 16.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (B.Pharma/M.Pharma degree-holders)
- Pharmacy Act, 1948 and PCI Regulations, 2015 occupy the field of pharmacist qualifications and allow B.Pharma/M.Pharma for registration; State Rules prescribing only Diploma are repugnant and ultra vires.
- “Minimum qualification” cannot exclude those with higher qualifications in the same discipline; the Rules’ own note treats degrees as acceptable.
- Exclusion lacks empirical basis (no data showing Diploma holders are better suited); violates Articles 14 and 16 (micro-classification among registered pharmacists).
- Amendment of 2024 was illusory—did not remove the Diploma requirement for degree-holders; High Court erred in hearing fresh Division Bench instead of Full Bench restoration.
Respondents (State of Bihar)
- Recruitment criteria under proviso to Article 309 are within State’s exclusive domain; Rule 6(1) upheld by Patna High Court—no arbitrariness or lack of nexus.
- No repugnancy: Act/Regulations regulate practice, not appointment; public health is State subject under List II.
- Diploma and Degree are distinct streams; Diploma holders undergo 500 hours of hospital training, justifying targeted selection for hospital roles.
- Degree-holders are not absolutely excluded—they may apply if they also possess Diploma; no fundamental‐rights infringement.
Factual Background
The State of Bihar framed the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 prescribing 10+2 (Science) plus Diploma in Pharmacy for direct recruitment of public pharmacists, while noting that B.Pharma/M.Pharma “may apply” only if also holding the Diploma. Successive amendments (2017, 2019, 2024) retained this requirement. Degree-holders without Diploma challenged the exclusion in Patna High Court; a Single Judge allowed them, the Division Bench reversed, and the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeals, upholding the Diploma requirement as a valid exercise of Article 309 rule‐making power.
Statutory Analysis
- Pharmacy Act, 1948: Sec. 10 empowers PCI to prescribe minimum education standards; Sec. 42 prohibits practice by unregistered persons. Does not mandate public‐service appointment.
- Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 (under Sec. 10 & 18): Define classes of practitioners and professional standards; not recruitment rules.
- Article 309, Constitution: Empowers States to frame service rules for public employment; subject to judicial review for arbitrariness or rights violations—does not require alignment with central professional‐regulation statutes.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing jurisprudence affirming State’s exclusive domain to prescribe recruitment qualifications under Article 309 was reaffirmed.