State Governments Cannot Add Qualifications For Public Posts Beyond Union Rules: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that where the Union occupies the field of prescribing qualifications for a public post, States cannot add further eligibility conditions, the Court observed. Deciding a batch of appeals on recruitment to the post of Drug Inspector, the Court examined State prescriptions that introduced an experience requirement different from the Union’s qualification framework under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Court upheld the view that the State additions could not stand, dismissed the appeals filed by the States, and allowed one candidate’s appeal on relief. It directed the concerned public service commissions to complete the selection afresh by treating the Union-prescribed qualification as essential and ignoring the added experience condition, with revised merit lists and consequential steps for appointments.
The batch of civil appeals arose from challenges to recruitment processes initiated by the States of Haryana and Karnataka for appointment to the posts of Drug Inspector and Drug Control Officer. The dispute concerned whether State Governments could prescribe experience as an essential qualification for appointment when qualifications were already prescribed under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, framed by the Central Government under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
In Haryana, the Public Service Commission issued advertisements prescribing experience as an essential qualification under State service rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Candidates lacking such experience were rejected despite meeting the educational qualifications under the Central Rules. Similar conditions were prescribed in Karnataka through recruitment rules and notifications issued by the State Public Service Commission, leading to exclusion of candidates at the stage of interview and document verification.
Aggrieved candidates approached the respective High Courts contending that the power to prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors vested exclusively with the Central Government and that the experience requirement under the proviso to Rule 49 was limited to authorisation for inspection of Schedule C drugs, not initial appointment. The High Courts accepted the challenge and set aside the experience requirement. The States and selected candidates carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court recorded, “It was observed that the State’s power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India extends to regulation of recruitment and conditions of service, including prescription of qualifications, subject to the constitutional limitation that such rules must not be inconsistent with the Central statute and the Rules framed thereunder, and that in the event of any conflict, the Drugs Rules would prevail over the State Rules of 2018.”
The Court stated, “Therefore, the State Governments may have co-extensive powers to appoint DI/DCO along with Central Government, but for the purpose of prescribing qualification of DI/DCO as per Sections 33(1) and 33(2)(b), as well as Section 33(2)(n), it is only the Central Government which has the power.” It recorded, “Therefore, to exercise the power for prescribing qualification of Inspectors, the field is occupied by the Central Legislature.” The Court stated, “Under the said power, Rule 49 of the Drug Rules prescribing ‘Qualification of Inspectors’ cannot be permitted to be overridden by the Rules framed in exercise of proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State or under the State statutes by the respective State Governments.”
The Court recorded, “Once the Provinces (States) gave up their power to Federal (Centre) to enact laws on the matters relating to control of drugs, the Federal (Centre) occupied the field to frame rules on the subject.” It stated, “…any encroachment by way of framing rules in the said domain, is liable to be struck down.”
On the experience requirement, the Court recorded, “Possessing an experience of a specific nature shall not be included within the qualification prescribed for initial appointment as Inspector.” It stated, “It carves out a distinction between the Inspector appointed at the initial stage and the Inspectors who have gained experience as prescribed, enabling them to discharge a higher degree of responsibility by virtue of their experience.” The Court recorded, “Therefore, the proviso to Rule 49 only deals with such distinction of the duties and does not say anything on the qualification required for appointment to the post of Inspector.”
The Court stated, “In light of the facts of the present appeals and the judgment of this Court in A.B Krishna (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that the Doctrine of Occupied Field is applicable.” It recorded, “The Rules of 2018 framed by the State of Haryana under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot override the Drug Rules in so far as it relates to prescription of qualification for appointment of Inspector.”
Finally, the Court recorded, “…it is concluded that the powers so exercised either by the State of Haryana or Karnataka to prescribe such qualifications for appointment of Inspector, over and above the provisions of the Drug Rules, is completely alien, in particular when the subject was already occupied by the Central Government and the rules have been framed by it. Once it has been held that State Governments do not have the power to legislate on the issue in the manner as done, and the recourse as permissible has not been taken, the question of repugnancy is not required to be dealt with. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh or the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru have interpreted the provisions in right earnest and rightly allowed the writ petitions filed by the participants, assailing the addition of experience as an essential qualification to participate in the process of selection.”
The Court directed that “Accordingly, the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and arising from State of Karnataka fail, and are hereby dismissed. The appeal bearing Diary No. 1909 of 2024 filed by the sole appellant Parveen Kumar succeeds, and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the following directions:-”
“(i) The Public Service Commission of the respective States are directed to complete process of selection by taking qualification as prescribed in Drug Rules as essential, ignoring the requirement of experience as prescribed in terms of State Rules. Thus, the qualifications specified in the respective advertisements, as an essential requirement/experience for appointment by way of additional qualification stand quashed as ultra vires to D&C Act.”
“(ii) The Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) and the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) are directed to re-draw the selection list of all those candidates who possess the qualification as directed hereinabove in direction (i) and prepare the final selection list, following the Rule 49 of the Drug Rules.”
“(iii) We make it clear that if the persons appointed in the State of Haryana fall within the merit of the said newly drawn selection list, which would consequently be prepared by HPSC and KPSC respectively, in compliance with the directions hereinabove, they be continued in service without any hindrance and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits similar to the other selected candidates who find place in the newly drawn selection list.”
“(iv) With respect to persons appointed in the State of Haryana, despite the selection itself being quashed; it is clarified that such appointees who do not fall within the merit of the said newly drawn selection list, the State Government shall be at discretion to continue them in employment, however only upon creation of supernumerary posts for them and not against the advertised vacancies. Simultaneously, their seniority and other benefits be decided by putting them in bottom of the select list or by taking the recourse as permissible under law.”
“(v) In consequence of dismissal of the Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-1731 of 2023, 1732-1738 of 2023; and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16490-16491 of 2023, and further, appeal bearing Diary No. 1909 of 2024 filed by sole appellant being allowed in terms of the directions as issued hereinabove; the HPSC and KPSC are directed to prepare the final merit lists of selected candidates for the respective States within a period of eight weeks and the same be sent to the States. The respective State Government, after completing necessary formalities, shall take steps for appointment of the selected candidates within a period of eight weeks thereafter.”
Case Title: The State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 63
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 1725–1731 of 2023 and connected matters
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi
