Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, on Friday (January 16), upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, affirming that States are empowered to set minimum eligibility criteria for public posts and may require a Diploma in Pharmacy for appointment as Pharmacist in Bihar. The Court dismissed appeals by pharmacy degree holders who sought inclusion in a recruitment process for 2,473 Pharmacist posts despite not holding the diploma qualification specified as the minimum requirement. It sustained the Patna High Court’s view that the State’s prescription of a diploma-based eligibility threshold for direct recruitment to the basic Pharmacist cadre does not warrant interference.

The dispute arose from challenges mounted by candidates holding Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Pharmacy against the eligibility criteria prescribed for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) under the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, as amended in 2024. The appellants, registered pharmacists under the State Pharmacy Council, questioned the continued prescription of Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum qualification for appointment to State service posts.

Also Read: Supreme Court Backs Disability Rights As CSR Obligation, Directs Coal India To Create Supernumerary Post For Candidate Denied Employment Due To Multiple Disabilities

They contended that central legislation governing pharmacy education and practice recognised both diploma and degree qualifications, and that exclusion of degree holders without a diploma was impermissible. The State defended the Cadre Rules as a valid exercise of power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, asserting that recruitment to public posts fell within its exclusive policy domain.

The controversy involved the interplay between State service rules and central legislation regulating the pharmacy profession, the scope of judicial review in matters of recruitment policy, and the permissibility of prescribing minimum qualifications for public employment. The High Court had upheld the validity of the amended rules, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Court examined the legislative scheme of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and recorded that “the Act was enacted to regulate the profession of pharmacy and to constitute pharmacy councils for that purpose.” It noted the Statement of Objects and Reasons and observed that “only persons who have attained a minimum standard of professional education should be permitted to practise the Profession of Pharmacy.”

While delineating the scope of the central legislation, the Court stated that “the scope of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, is limited to regulating the educational qualifications and professional conduct in the practice of pharmacy.” It further recorded that “the Act creates a pool of persons eligible to practise as pharmacists, it does not mandate that every registered pharmacist must be considered for appointment to public posts.”

On the issue of repugnancy, the Court observed that “repugnancy arises only where compliance with one law necessarily results in disobedience of another, or where both laws occupy the same field and are irreconcilable.” It recorded that “the Cadre Rules operate in the domain of public employment, while the Act and Regulations operate in the field of professional regulation.” The Court clarified that “Section 42 cannot be construed to confer a right to public employment merely by virtue of registration.”

Addressing the employer’s authority, the Court observed that “the fixing of minimum qualification for recruitment to any service cadre under the State is to be decided by the employer.” It further stated that “the power of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights.”

On equivalence of qualifications, the Court recorded that “a qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in another.” It also observed that “courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer.”

Regarding the rationale for prescribing Diploma in Pharmacy, the Court noted that “the Diploma in Pharmacy course mandates 500 hours of compulsory practical training.” It contrasted this with degree courses and recorded that “the diplomates and graduates are trained in different subjects.” The Court concluded that “the decision of the State in making possession of a Diploma an essential qualification for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary.”

Finally, the Court observed that “there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or postgraduate degree holders,” since “they remain eligible, provided they possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.”

Also Read: State Need Not Pave Way For Encroachers On Government Land: Madras High Court Dismisses SASTRA University Plea, Upholds Eviction From Site Earmarked For Prison

The Court directed: “we find no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the Division Bench in upholding the validity of the Cadre Rules. The appeals are dismissed. Contempt Petition (@ Diary No. 44226 of 2025) is also dismissed. I.A. No. 152532 of 2025 is allowed,” and clarified that “other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Case Title: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 68
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & connected matters)
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma