State Governments Cannot Add Experience Requirement for Drug Inspector Posts; Centre's Rules Prevail

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi heard a batch of appeals challenging whether State Governments could, by rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 or under State enactments, prescribe “experience” as an essential qualification for appointment as Drug Inspector / Drug Control Officer contrary to Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The appeals arose from rival orders of the Punjab & Haryana and Karnataka High Courts that had quashed state recruitment conditions and selection lists.

The Supreme Court held that the power to prescribe qualifications for Inspectors under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 vested exclusively with the Central Government and that the central rules had “occupied the field”. The Court observed that while States and the Centre could both appoint Inspectors, “the person selected or appointed must possess the qualifications as prescribed under the D&C Act” and that prescription of those qualifications must conform to rules made under the Act. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In view of the above, we have examined the scheme of the D&C Act and the Drug Rules, whereby it is clear that power of appointment may be co-extensive, but the person selected or appointed must possess the qualifications as prescribed under the D&C Act. The Central Government for the purpose of Chapter IV of the D&C Act has prescribed the qualification of Inspectors i.e., DI/DCO by promulgating the Drug Rules. In the said context, Section 3(i) lays relevant emphasis while defining ‘prescribed’ to mean ‘prescribed by the rules made under this Act.’ Therefore, prescription of the qualification of Inspectors under the D&C Act must be as prescribed by the rules made under the Act. Since such qualification is prescribed under Rule 49 of the Drug Rules, which have been framed under Section 6, 12, 33 and 33N of the D&C Act, such qualification shall be the qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of DI/DCO, and not otherwise.” The Court further noted that the State rules which made experience a “minimum” or essential qualification were “ultra vires” the central enactment and must be set aside.

Background
The litigation arose after the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) and Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued recruitment notifications (Haryana: advertisement dated 7.9.2015 and corrigendum 4.6.2019; Karnataka: notification dated 23.3.2018) that treated specified experience in manufacture, testing or inspection of Schedule C/C1 drugs as an essential eligibility criterion. Candidates who lacked that experience were excluded; several writ petitions and tribunal proceedings followed. Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court held that the State rules/notifications were inconsistent with Rule 49 of the Drug Rules and with Sections 21 and 33 of the D&C Act, and quashed the relevant provisions and selection lists. The States contended that Article 309, and in Karnataka the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, empowered them to prescribe qualifications for State appointments; petitioners and High Courts relied on the doctrine of occupied field and prior precedents such as A.B. Krishna. The Supreme Court accepted the High Courts’ approach, rejected reliance on S. Satyapal Reddy as distinguishable, and held that the proviso to Rule 49 merely authorized certain Inspectors, after gaining specified experience, to inspect manufacture of Schedule C substances and did not convert that experience into an essential qualification for initial appointment.

The Court dismissed the appeals by the States (Haryana and Karnataka) and allowed the appeal by a sole contestant (Diary No. 1909 of 2024), issuing detailed directions. It recalled its interim direction of 17.7.2023 which permitted conditional appointments in Haryana subject to final outcome.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 63; Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-1731 of 2023; 1732-1738 of 2023; SLP (C) Nos. 16490-16491 of 2023; Diary No. 1909/2024
Case Title: The State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar & Ors.; Chetan Verma & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.; Kiran Kumar M. v. The Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors.; Parveen Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee (Additional Solicitor General) for State of Haryana; Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli (Senior Counsel) for State of Karnataka
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shoeb Alam (Senior Counsel) for the participants/contestants; (HPSC/KPSC counsel noted in record; other appearing counsel for parties were recorded in the judgment)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 178