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 |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on State discretion in recruitment |
| Type of Law | Public employment law / service jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 regulate professional standards and registration but do not confer a right to public employment or govern State recruitment policy. Service rules under Article 309 permit the State to set minimum qualifications for its cadre posts, subject to rational basis review. No repugnancy arises because the Act/Regulations occupy a different field than public employment. Judicial review of recruitment rules is limited to arbitrariness or lack of nexus; here, the State’s requirement of a Diploma-in-Pharmacy—supported by differences in training hours and employment avenues—cannot be characterized as arbitrary or unconstitutional. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The State of Bihar’s 2014 Cadre Rules prescribed Intermediate + Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum qualification for direct recruitment to Pharmacist (basic category), with a note that B.Pharm/M.Pharm holders “may also apply” only if they possess a Diploma. Degree-holders without a Diploma challenged the prescription in the Patna High Court, which upheld the rules. The appellants then appealed to this Court, arguing repugnancy with the central Pharmacy Act, 1948 and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; State recruiting authorities |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 regulate professional registration and do not confer a right to State employment.
- Reaffirms that service rules under Article 309 fall within the State’s exclusive domain to fix eligibility criteria, subject only to rational basis review.
- Confirms that repugnancy requires occupation of the same field or direct conflict; mere recognition of higher qualifications by central regulations does not invalidate State rules on public employment.
- Emphasises that courts cannot determine equivalence of qualifications or substitute their policy view on recruitment standards.
- Holds that prescription of Diploma in Pharmacy is supported by differences in practical training hours and limited employment avenues, and is not arbitrary.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Pharmacy Act and Regulations
The Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the 2015 Regulations govern professional education, registration, standards and practice, not State recruitment. - Repugnancy Test
No repugnancy: central enactments and State service rules occupy distinct fields (professional regulation vs public employment). - Article 309 and State Discretion
Service rules under Article 309 empower the State as employer to set minimum qualifications based on policy needs. - Limited Judicial Review
Courts may intervene only for arbitrariness, lack of intelligible differentia, or violation of fundamental rights. - Precedents
Decisions in Bihar Rajya Berojgar Bheshagya Sangh, J&K SSRB, Zahoor Ahmad Rather, Jyoti K.K., Maharashtra PSC, etc., consistently uphold employer’s exclusive domain and reject judicial equivalence determination. - Rational Basis
Diploma course mandates 500 hours of hospital training, not required in B.Pharm; diploma holders have narrower employment avenues—justifying a distinct eligibility requirement. - Conclusion
The requirement of Diploma in Pharmacy is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional; the High Court rightly upheld the Cadre Rules.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (B.Pharm/M.Pharm holders)
- The central Pharmacy Act and Regulations statutorily recognise both Diploma and Degree qualifications for pharmacists.
- Rule 6(1) prescribing Diploma as the sole essential qualification is repugnant to the central enactments and ultra vires Article 309.
- The Appendix-I note shows rule-making authority intended to treat higher qualifications as valid; exclusion is arbitrary and disproportionate, violating Articles 14 and 16.
- No empirical basis or data to show Diploma holders are better suited for State service; micro-classification among registered pharmacists lacks intelligible differentia.
- Contractual pharmacists with years of service are unfairly excluded from regular recruitment.
- The amendment in 2024 was illusory and failed to address Full Bench’s directive.
Respondent (State of Bihar)
- Recruitment eligibility under Article 309 is a policy matter exclusively for the State as employer; judicial review limited to manifest arbitrariness.
- Diploma and Degree in Pharmacy are distinct courses with different objectives and training; no rule prescribes equivalence.
- The Pharmacy Act and Regulations do not govern public recruitment; no repugnancy arises.
- Diploma-holders undergo 500 hours of compulsory hospital training—relevant for public health service in hospitals and dispensaries.
- Degree-holders are not excluded but must possess the Diploma if they wish to apply; the classification has rational nexus with public health objectives.
Intervenor (Pharmacy Council of India)
- Exclusion of Degree-holders absent a rational basis constitutes impermissible micro-classification among statutorily recognised pharmacists.
Factual Background
The State of Bihar introduced the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 prescribing Intermediate + Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum qualification for direct recruitment to the basic Pharmacist post, with a note that B.Pharm/M.Pharm holders “may also apply” only if they possess a Diploma. Degree-holders without a Diploma challenged this requirement before the Patna High Court. The High Court upheld the rule, and the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing conflict with the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 309, Constitution: Empowers the State to make service rules, including qualification requirements for public posts.
- Pharmacy Act, 1948: Section 2(i) defines registered pharmacist; Sections 10, 31, 32 govern education regulations and registration; Section 42 prohibits practice without registration.
- Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015: Prescribe minimum education for registration as Diploma in Pharmacy or Bachelor in Pharmacy; regulate professional conduct.
- Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024): Rule 6(1) mandates 10+2 + Diploma in Pharmacy; Appendix-I note requires Degree-holders to possess a Diploma.
- Repugnancy Analysis: No overlap—central enactments do not dictate State recruitment policy.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed