The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024), affirming the State government’s discretion to prescribe a Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification for the post of Pharmacist. A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed a batch of appeals filed by candidates possessing Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharma) and Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharma) degrees who challenged their exclusion from the recruitment process for not possessing the requisite Diploma.
The legal issue before the Apex Court was whether the High Court erred in upholding the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, which prescribed ‘Diploma in Pharmacy’ as the minimum educational qualification for the post of Pharmacist (basic category). The Appellants contended that possessing higher qualifications like B.Pharma or M.Pharma should make them eligible. The Supreme Court held that the prescription of qualifications is a matter of recruitment policy within the exclusive domain of the employer. The Court ruled that candidates holding higher degrees without the basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy do not satisfy the eligibility criteria, noting that the two courses have distinct objectives and training structures.
Background of the Case
The controversy originated from the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, notified on October 10, 2014. Rule 6(1) prescribed the minimum qualification for direct recruitment as Intermediate/10+2 (Science) pass with a Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized institution and registration with the Bihar Pharmacy Council. A “Note” in Appendix-I initially stated that B.Pharma/M.Pharma holders “may also apply.”
Following subsequent amendments and recruitment notifications, disputes arose when the State prescribed ‘Diploma in Pharmacy’ as the essential qualification, effectively excluding degree holders who did not possess the diploma. While a Single Judge of the Patna High Court initially allowed degree holders to participate, a Division Bench later set aside that order on January 10, 2023.
The State subsequently notified the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024, on October 24, 2024. The amendment substituted the Note in Appendix-I to stipulate that “B. Pharma & M. Pharma certificate holders may be eligible provided they possess qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.”
Aggrieved by this continued prescription, the Appellants moved the High Court, which dismissed their writ petitions vide the impugned order dated April 10, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants, represented by learned senior counsel, argued that the Rules were repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 framed by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI). They contended that under the central regulations, both Diploma and Bachelor degree holders are eligible to be appointed as Pharmacists. They argued that “minimum” qualification should not debar higher qualifications and that excluding higher qualified candidates violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The State of Bihar contended that fixing minimum qualifications for recruitment falls within the exclusive domain of the employer. It was argued that Diploma and Degree courses are designed with different objectives; while degree holders have higher academic qualifications, diploma holders are trained with a specific focus on practical and technical skills required for hospital services. The State emphasized that Diploma holders are better suited for hospital services, whereas degree holders have avenues in industrial employment.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, delivering the judgment, rejected the argument of repugnancy. The Court observed that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the 2015 Regulations operate in the field of professional regulation and registration, whereas the Cadre Rules operate in the domain of public employment.
“The Act only creates a pool of eligible persons who may be appointed as pharmacists, the 2015 Regulations certify who is technically competent to practice as a pharmacist, while the Cadre Rules reflect the State’s policy choice in selecting from the broader pool for public employment,” the Court observed.
The Bench reiterated the settled legal principle that the determination of essential qualifications is the prerogative of the employer. Relying on precedents including Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019) and Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade (2019), the Court held that judicial review does not extend to expanding the ambit of prescribed qualifications or determining equivalence.
Addressing the specific distinction between the courses, the Court noted the rational basis provided by the State: “The Diploma in Pharmacy course mandates 500 hours of compulsory practical training, including 250 hours devoted to dispensing prescriptions… While, under the B. Pharma course Regulations, 2014, degree students are required to undergo 150 hours of practical training… The diplomates and graduates are trained in different subjects.”
The Court further accepted the State’s policy rationale regarding employment avenues. It noted that degree holders have opportunities in drug manufacturing and as Drug Inspectors, which are not available to diploma holders.
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the prescription of eligibility criteria of 10+2 with Diploma in Pharmacy is neither arbitrary nor irrational. The Court observed: “The State has merely identified a narrower catchment of candidates it considers most suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool registered pharmacists.”
The Court clarified that there is no absolute exclusion of degree holders, as they remain eligible provided they possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the validity of the Cadre Rules was upheld.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12236 of 2025 (2026 INSC 68)
- Coram: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
