Supreme Court upholds Bihar rule requiring Diploma in Pharmacy as essential qualification for state pharmacist posts

A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma heard appeals by holders of B.Pharm and M.Pharm degrees challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024). The appeals questioned whether the State could prescribe Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) and whether that prescription conflicted with the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 framed by the Pharmacy Council of India.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court which had found the Cadre Rules to be constitutionally valid. The Court held that the Pharmacy Act and the 2015 Regulations regulated professional qualifications and registration but did not confer a right to public employment, and that determination of eligibility criteria for State recruitment lay within the employer’s policy domain unless shown to be arbitrary or repugnant to statute. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. The Cadre Rules operate in the domain of public employment, while the Act and Regulations operate in the field of professional regulation. It is true that the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot permit the appointment of persons who are not registered pharmacists under the 2015 Regulations, as Section 42 of the Act expressly prohibits such appointments. However, Section 42 cannot be construed to confer a right to public employment merely by virtue of registration. The Act only creates a pool of persons eligible to practise 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. No conflict arises unless the State appoints someone lacking the minimum technical qualification."

Background

The dispute arose after the State of Bihar framed the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 prescribing in Rule 6(1) that "minimum educational qualification shall be Intermediate/10+2 (Science) pass and passing in all parts (part I, II & III) of Diploma-in Pharmacy ... and a certificate to that effect shall be necessary." Appendix I originally carried a note permitting B.Pharm and M.Pharm holders to apply; later amendments, including the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024, clarified that B.Pharm and M.Pharm certificate holders "may be eligible provided they possess qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy."

Candidates holding B.Pharm/M.Pharm but not a Diploma challenged recruitment notifications that restricted eligibility to Diploma holders. A Single Judge of the Patna High Court initially allowed degree holders to participate, but a Division Bench reversed that order in January 2023. This Court in May 2023 disposed of an SLP as infructuous and granted liberty to approach the High Court anew; the State then amended the Cadre Rules in 2024 and initiated recruitment in 2025. The Patna High Court (Division Bench) dismissed fresh writ petitions by degree-holders on 10.04.2025 upholding the amended rules, prompting the present appeals.

The petitioners argued that the Pharmacy Act and the PCI Regulations occupied the field and made degree-holders eligible as pharmacists for public posts; they relied on principles against arbitrary exclusion and sought harmonisation of the State rules with central regulations. The State and intervenors submitted that the Act and Regulations governed professional standards and registration, not State employment policy, and that prescription of Diploma as an essential qualification had a rational basis — notably differing course content and compulsory hospital training requirements for Diploma courses — and did not amount to arbitrariness. The Court reviewed relevant precedents on employer discretion in prescribing qualifications and found the State’s classification demonstrably within the realm of policy and not perverse. The appeals were dismissed; the contempt petition was also dismissed and an intervenor was impleaded. No costs were awarded.

Case No.: 2026 INSC 68 Case Title: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Senior counsel appearing for appellants — names not specified in judgment text] For the Respondent(s): [Senior counsel appearing for State and Pharmacy Council of India — names not specified in judgment text]