Md. Firoz Mansuri vs. The State Of Bihar

2026 INSC 68
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12236 of 2025)

MD. FIROZ MANSURI & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11572 of 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11752 of 2025)

CONTEMPT PETITION DIARY NO. 44226/2025

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19160 of 2025)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25910 of 2025)


Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2026.01.16
16:55:19 IST
Reason:

SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 1 of 31



J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise from the judgement and order of
the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated
10.04.2025 ( hereinafter “ Impugned Order ”), wherein the High
Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar
Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by the Bihar
Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024) ( hereinafter
“ Cadre Rules ”), holding that that the fixation of minimum
qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist and the “note” in the
Cadre Rules providing that holders of Bachelor’s/ Master’s
degree in Pharmacy could apply but subject to their having
obtained the minimum qualification of diploma, is neither
arbitrary or exclusionary per se .
3. The Appellants are holders of Bachelor’s/ Master’s degree
in Pharmacy ( hereinafter “ B.Pharma and M.Pharma ”) and are
registered with the Bihar State Pharmacy Registration Council.
They claim eligibility for appointment to the post of Pharmacist
(basic category) under the State of Bihar.
4. The Government of Bihar notified the Bihar Pharmacists
Cadre Rules, 2014 on 10.10.2014. Rule 6(1) prescribed the
minimum educational qualification for appointment by direct
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 2 of 31



recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) as
Intermediate/10+2 (Science) pass with passing in all parts of
Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognised institution and
registration with the Bihar Pharmacy Council. Appendix-I
identified the various categories of posts, including the post of
Pharmacist (basic category), and stipulated their requisite
qualifications. A note appended thereto stated that candidates
possessing Bachelor of Pharmacy/ Master of Pharmacy degrees
may also apply.
5. Thereafter, on 15.01.2015, the Pharmacy Council of India
notified the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 ( hereinafter
“ the Regulations ”) under Sections 10 and 18 of the Pharmacy
Act, 1948 ( hereinafter “ the Act ”). Appendix-III to the
Regulations prescribed the qualification for the position of
Pharmacist as Diploma in Pharmacy or Bachelor in Pharmacy.
6. The Cadre Rules were amended by the Bihar Pharmacists
Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2017 and notified on 03.11.2017.
The amendment introduced a promotional hierarchy in the cadre
in conformity with the Regulations. The qualification under Rule
6(1) remained unchanged. The note permitting Bachelor and
Master of Pharmacy degree holders to apply continued.
7. By notification dated 24.07.2019, the Cadre Rules were
further amended, whereby Rule 7 was substituted to provide that
selection to the post of Pharmacist would be made through
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 3 of 31



preparation of a merit list on the basis of academic qualifications
and experience, and the Bihar Technical Service Commission
was designated as the recruiting authority.
8. The State issued recruitment notifications under the Cadre
Rules prescribing ‘Diploma in Pharmacy’ as the essential
qualification to be appointed to the post of Pharmacist (basic
category). Consequently, candidates holding
B.Pharma/M.Pharma degrees but not possessing Diploma in
Pharmacy instituted writ proceedings before the High Court of
Judicature at Patna ( hereinafter “ High Court ” ). In the said
proceedings, the Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 10.12.2019,
allowed the petitions and permitted candidates possessing
Bachelor and Master of Pharmacy degrees to participate in the
selection process on the ground that the minimum qualification
prescribed under the Rules could not be construed as an essential
qualification, if a higher qualification has been recognized under
the Rules as valid qualification. On a conjoint reading of Rule 6
and Appendix-I to the Rules, it was held that the rule-making
authority had treated B.Pharma and M.Pharma qualifications as
valid for appointment to the post in question.
9. The order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Single Judge
was challenged by the State in a batch of Letters Patent Appeals,
the lead matter being L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020. Vide final order
dated 10.01.2023, the Division Bench allowed the appeals and
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 4 of 31



set aside the order of the Ld. Single Judge, holding that
possession of higher qualifications without the basic qualification
of Diploma in Pharmacy would not render candidates eligible for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist.
10. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 10.01.2023 was
challenged before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 4121 of 2023. Vide final order dated 01.05.2023, this
Court disposed of the SLP without entering into the merits of the
controversy, taking note of the fact that the recruitment
notification impugned therein had been withdrawn and a fresh
notification dated 05.04.2023 had been issued, prescribing
identical eligibility criteria. Liberty was granted to the petitioners
to approach the High Court to assail the subsequent notification,
leaving all issues open.
11. The notification dated 05.04.2023 was challenged before
the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7437 of 2023 ( Sanjeev Kumar
Mishra & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors .) along with connected
matters, seeking permission for candidates not possessing a
Diploma in Pharmacy but possessing B.Pharma and M.Pharma
degrees, to participate in the selection process.
12. By interim order dated 17.05.2023, the High Court
permitted candidates holding B.Pharma and M.Pharma degrees
to apply, subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
Additionally, in view of the earlier Division Bench judgment
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 5 of 31



dated 10.01.2023, the writ petitions were referred to a Full Bench
of the High Court.
13. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Full
Bench, the State submitted that amendments to the Cadre Rules
were under contemplation and that the recruitment process would
be withdrawn. Vide judgment dated 06.11.2023, the Full Bench
disposed of the writ petitions as infructuous, while clarifying that
in the event recruitment was initiated without any amendment of
the Cadre Rules, the Petitioners would be entitled to seek
restoration.
14. Subsequently, the State notified the Bihar Pharmacist
Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024, ( hereinafter “ 2024
Amendment ”) published in the Bihar Gazette on 24.10.2024. By
the said amendment, Rule 7 was substituted to provide for
selection through a written examination and work experience.
The Note in Appendix-I was also substituted to stipulate that
Bachelor and Master of Pharmacy certificate holders may be
eligible provided they possess qualification of Diploma in
Pharmacy.
15. Following the 2024 amendment, the Health Department
finalised roster clearance for 2,473 posts of Pharmacists and
forwarded a requisition dated 01.11.2024 to the General
Administration Department for initiation of recruitment in
accordance with the amended Cadre Rules. A recruitment
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 6 of 31



notification was published by Bihar Technical Service
Commission on 10.03.2025 in Newspapers inviting applications
from eligible candidates for selection and appointment to the post
of Pharmacist as per the amended rules.
16. Aggrieved by the 2024 Amendment and the continued
prescription of Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential
qualification, the Appellants, upon being unsuccessful in seeking
restoration of the earlier writ petitions, instituted fresh writ
proceedings before the High Court, challenging the constitutional
validity of Rule 6(1) of the Cadre Rules (as amended by the 2024
Amendment). Vide Impugned Order dated 10.04.2025, the
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions,
upholding the validity of the amended Cadre Rules.
17. Subsequently, the Appellants have approached this Court
by way of the present appeals. During the pendency of the present
appeals, I.A. No. 152532 of 2025 has been filed by an Intervenor,
seeking to be impleaded as Respondent No. 47, being a Diploma
Holder and having appeared in the competitive examination held
on 04.06.2025 pursuant to the recruitment process initiated under
the Cadre Rules.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS
18. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellants contended that the impugned provisions of the Cadre
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 7 of 31



Rules, as amended from time to time, are liable to be set aside as
being repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy
Practice Regulations, 2015 framed thereunder by the Pharmacy
Council of India. It was submitted that the Pharmacy Act, 1948
is a Central legislation occupying the field relating to regulation
of the profession of pharmacy, including qualifications,
registration, professional responsibilities and ethical standards of
Pharmacists. The Regulations framed by the PCI in exercise of
statutory powers under Sections 10 and 18 of the Act, it was
urged, have statutory force and prevail over Rules framed by the
State under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
The Regulations prescribe the qualification for the post of
Pharmacist as Diploma in Pharmacy or Bachelor in Pharmacy. In
terms of these Regulations, both categories of candidates are
eligible to be appointed as Pharmacists. Fixation of Diploma in
Pharmacy as the sole basic qualification under the State Rules
runs directly contrary to the Regulations. Further, the Pharmacy
Council of India vide letter dated 07.10.2022 clarified that the
Regulations framed by the PCI are binding on the State
Governments to implement the same with immediate effect.
Thus, to the extent the Cadre Rules prescribe eligibility criteria
inconsistent with the central enactment and the Regulations, they
were asserted to be ultra vires.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 8 of 31



19. It was further contended that Rule 6(1) of the Cadre Rules
prescribes the minimum educational qualification as Diploma in
Pharmacy and that such prescription cannot be construed as an
essential qualification so as to exclude candidates possessing
higher qualifications in the same discipline. According to the
Appellants, the expression “minimum” must be understood
contextually as a threshold or cut-off requirement and ordinarily
cannot operate to debar recruitment of candidates with higher
qualifications, particularly in the absence of an express
exclusion. The note in the Appendix-I to the Cadre Rules
expressly provides that B.Pharma and M.Pharma pass candidates
“may also apply”. The Appellants submitted that the inclusion of
such a note in Appendix-I demonstrates that the rule-making
authority treated Bachelor and Master degrees in Pharmacy as
valid qualifications for appointment to the basic cadre post of
Pharmacist. Hence, the State cannot contend that possession of
Diploma in Pharmacy alone constitutes the essential
qualification, especially when the Rules themselves recognise
higher qualifications as acceptable.
20. The learned senior counsel for the Appellants have also
submitted that the Bachelor or Master of Pharmacy are higher
qualifications as compared to Diploma in Pharmacy. Reliance
was placed on Clause 4-B of the Bachelor of Pharmacy
Regulations, 2014, which provides for lateral entry of Diploma
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 9 of 31



holders into the second year of the B.Pharma course. This,
according to the Appellants, establishes that Diploma in
Pharmacy is a feeder qualification and that the Bachelor degree
is a higher academic qualification in the same channel of
education.
21. For the next limb of their submissions, the Appellants
contended that the Cadre Rules fail the test of proportionality.
According to the Appellants, exclusion of higher qualified
candidates in the same discipline serves no legitimate State
interest and causes disproportionate harm to degree holders,
thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
22. That the only justification advanced by the State, namely,
that diploma holders are better suited for hospital services
whereas degree holders are more suited for industrial
employment, is based on inferential logic and not on any
empirical study. No data or material has been placed on record to
establish that diploma holders are more effective as hospital
Pharmacists or that their avenues of employment are so limited
as to warrant protective exclusion of degree holders. The
Appellants contended that the disproportionate impact on degree
holders, including denial of public employment opportunities,
has been completely ignored, rendering the Cadre Rules
arbitrary.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 10 of 31



23. That the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Regulations framed
thereunder clearly define the contours of both Diploma and
Degree courses, the eligibility of holders thereof to be registered
as Pharmacists, and their professional responsibilities. A
Pharmacist, it was urged, may be required to serve not only in
hospitals but also in the industrial wing of the Health Department,
in drug manufacturing units, and as Drug Inspectors.
24. The Appellants also challenged the validity of
Advertisement No. 05/2023 issued by the Bihar Technical
Service Commission, contending that it restricted eligibility only
to Diploma holders, despite the applicability of the Pharmacy
Practice Regulations, 2015 and without appropriate
harmonisation of the Cadre Rules. It was urged that several
Appellants had been working as Pharmacists on a contractual
basis for the last 10 years and that exclusion from regular
recruitment deprived them of their right to employment
guaranteed under the Constitution [Reliance placed on Sodan
Singh & Ors. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors .,
(1989) 4 SCC 155 ].
25. Learned senior counsel submitted that the State cannot be
permitted to create sub-classifications among registered
Pharmacists solely on the basis of educational qualifications,
particularly when all such persons are statutorily recognised as
Pharmacists. Such micro-classification amongst registered
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 11 of 31



Pharmacists serves no rational purpose and lacks any intelligible
differentia. That sub-classification without a rational basis is
constitutionally impermissible [Reliance placed on D.S. Nakara
& Ors. v. Union of India , (1983) 1 SCC 305; State of Punjab &
Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors., (2025) 1 SCC 1 ].
26. That every effort ought to be made to harmoniously
construe the Cadre Rules with the central legislation so as to
avoid a declaration of invalidity. According to the Appellants,
such reconciliation could be achieved by removing the
stipulation that only those B.Pharma and M.Pharma holders who
also possess a Diploma in Pharmacy would be eligible, thereby
bringing the Rules in conformity with the Pharmacy Act and the
Regulations of 2015.
27. Lastly, the learned counsel for the Appellants submitted
that the High Court erred in law in deciding the writ petitions
through a Division Bench despite the fact that an identical
question concerning the validity of the eligibility criteria under
Rule 6(1) of the Cadre Rules had earlier been considered by a
Bench of three Judges. The Full Bench, while closing the writ
petitions as infructuous, had expressly granted liberty to seek
restoration if the Rules were not substantively amended. It was
urged that the amendment introduced vide Notification dated
24.10.2024 did not bring about any substantive change to Rule
6(1). The amendment merely inserted a note in Appendix-I
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 12 of 31



requiring B.Pharma and M.Pharma holders to additionally
possess a Diploma in Pharmacy, thereby continuing the exclusion
of candidates who had directly acquired a Bachelor or Master
degree in Pharmacy. According to the Appellants, the
amendment was illusory in nature and did not address the
grievance recorded by the Full Bench.
28. The learned counsel for the Pharmacy Council of India
(PCI) submitted that the rationale behind excluding persons of
higher degree is non-existent and is hit by the vice of micro-
classification, which is impermissible.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS
29. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State submitted
that the validity of Clause 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre
Rules, 2014 had been upheld by a Division Bench of the Patna
High Court in Bihar Rajya Berojgar Bheshagya Sangh & Ors.
v. State of Bihar & Ors. , 2016 SCC OnLine Pat 6599 . The High
Court held that prescription of minimum qualifications for
recruitment to a service cadre falls within the exclusive domain
of the State Government as the employer and that the scope of
judicial review in such matters is limited. Unless the prescription
is shown to be arbitrary or lacking any reasonable nexus with the
object sought to be achieved, the Court cannot substitute its own
view for that of the rule-making authority.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 13 of 31



30. It was further submitted that a similar issue arose before
the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in J&K Service Selection
Recruitment Board & Anr. v. Basit Aslam Wani & Ors. ,
MANU/JK/0359/2020 , wherein the question was whether a
Bachelor’s degree in Pharmacy could be treated as a higher
qualification vis-à-vis a Diploma when the Rules prescribed
Diploma as the requisite qualification for the post of Junior
Pharmacist. The High Court held that the two qualifications are
distinct and not interchangeable, and that eligibility criteria are
within the exclusive domain of the employer. The Special Leave
Petitions preferred against the said judgment were dismissed by
this Court vide order dated 05.03.2021.
31. The respondents further contested that the wisdom of
prescribing minimum eligibility qualifications is a matter of
policy and lies outside the scope of judicial review [Reliance
placed on Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz
Ahmad & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 404; Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala
Public Service Commission & Ors ., (2010) 15 SCC 596; State
of Punjab & Ors. v. Anita & Ors ., (2015) 2 SCC 170; P.M.
Latha & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors ., (2003) 3 SCC 541 ].
32. That the determination of essential qualifications is the
prerogative of the employer and that courts cannot rewrite
recruitment rules or advertisements by treating desirable or
higher qualifications as equivalent to essential qualifications. The
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 14 of 31



question of equivalence of qualifications also lies beyond the
domain of judicial review [Reliance placed on Maharashtra
Public Service Commission through its Secretary v. Sandeep
Shriram Warade & Ors. (2019) 6 SCC 362] .
33. It was submitted that the provision for lateral entry of
Diploma holders into the B.Pharma course, or overlap in certain
subjects, does not render the two qualifications equivalent or
place them in the same channel of education. In technical fields,
Diploma and Degree courses are designed with different
objectives, scope and skill sets. While degree holders may
possess higher academic qualifications, diploma holders are
trained with a specific focus on practical and technical skills. The
State, while framing recruitment rules, is entitled to take these
aspects into account.
34. Addressing the plea of repugnancy, learned counsel
submitted that the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy
Practice Regulations, 2015 operate in a field distinct from that
occupied by the Cadre Rules. The Act does not govern
recruitment to public posts, which falls within the policy domain
of the State, particularly in matters relating to public health, a
subject under List II of the Seventh Schedule.
35. It was contended that the role of the Pharmacy Council of
India is to regulate education, maintain standards and oversee
registration of Pharmacists, and not to dictate employment
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 15 of 31



policies of State Governments. The Cadre Rules, it was urged,
are in consonance with the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Rule 6(2) itself
mandates registration with the Bihar State Pharmacy Council in
accordance with the Act. The Cadre Rules merely carve out an
eligibility criterion from within the larger pool of registered
Pharmacists for appointment to the State service.
36. Learned counsel submitted that the Pharmacy Practice
Regulations, 2015 cannot be read to override the Cadre Rules. In
the absence of any express statutory mandate requiring States to
appoint all categories of registered Pharmacists to public posts,
the contention that recruitment must strictly follow the 2015
Regulations was stated to be misconceived.
37. It was contended that the State, as an employer, is required
to act fairly and in a non-arbitrary manner, subject to the
limitations under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the State Government has consciously exercised
its discretion in prescribing Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential
qualification, having regard to the nature of duties to be
discharged in public hospitals, dispensaries and health centres.
Particular emphasis was placed on the fact that Diploma holders
are required to undergo 500 hours of compulsory hospital
training, which is not a mandatory component of the B.Pharma
curriculum. This, according to the State, provides an empirical
and rational basis for the classification.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 16 of 31



38. That degree holders have not been excluded per se, but are
required to possess the essential qualification of Diploma in
Pharmacy. Such a stipulation, it was argued, does not violate
Articles 14, 16 or 19 of the Constitution, as there exists an
intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought
to be achieved, namely, effective delivery of public health
services.
39. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that legislation or
statutory rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution can be struck down only on the grounds of lack of
legislative competence or violation of fundamental rights. No
such infirmity exists in the present case.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
40. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties and perused the material placed on record.
41. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the
High Court erred in upholding the constitutional validity of the
Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by the Bihar
Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024). More particularly,
the question is whether candidates holding Bachelor or Master of
Pharmacy degrees, without possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy,
satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for
appointment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) under the
said Rules.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 17 of 31



42. A pharmacist forms an integral part of the public health
delivery system. In Government hospitals, dispensaries and
primary health centres, the pharmacist is entrusted with
responsibilities relating to storage, dispensing and management
of medicines, adherence to prescription protocols, maintenance
of drug inventories, patient counselling and compliance with
regulatory requirements. The public places great trust in the
knowledge, skills and professional judgments of pharmacists.
43. The Government of Bihar notified the Bihar Pharmacist
Cadre Rules, 2014 on 10.10.2014 in exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India.
44. Rule 6(1) stipulates the minimum educational qualification
for appointment by direct recruitment to basic category posts, in
the following terms:
“ Qualifications. (1) For appointment by direct
recruitment to the basic category posts, minimum
educational qualification shall be
Intermediate/10+2 (Science) pass and passing in
all parts (part I, II & III) of Diploma-in Pharmacy
from the institution recognised by the Government
and a certificate to that effect shall be necessary .”

45. The note to Appendix-I(1) of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre
(Amendment) Rules, 2024 further clarifies that:
“ Note: B. Pharma & M. Pharma certificate holders
may be eligible provided they possess qualification
of Diploma in Pharmacy .”
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 18 of 31



46. The Appellants contend that Rule 6(1), read with the
aforesaid Note, is repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the
Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 framed thereunder, on the
ground that the central legislation occupies the field of
prescription of qualifications for pharmacists. At this juncture, it
becomes necessary to examine the object, scope and scheme of
the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Act was enacted to regulate the
profession of pharmacy and to constitute pharmacy councils for
that purpose. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act
reads thus:
“ It is desirable that, as in most other countries, only
persons who have attained a minimum standard of
professional education should be permitted to
practise the Profession of Pharmacy. It is
accordingly proposed to establish a Central
Council of Pharmacy, which will prescribe the
minimum standards of education and approve
courses of study and examinations for Pharmacists,
and Provincial Pharmacy Councils, which will be
responsible for the maintenance of provincial
registers of qualified pharmacists. It is further
proposed to empower Provincial Governments to
prohibit the dispensing of medicine on the
prescription of a medical practitioner otherwise
than by, or under the direct and personal
supervision of, a registered pharmacist .”
(emphasis supplied)

47. Section 2(i) of the Act defines a registered pharmacist as
person whose name is entered in the State register for carrying on
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 19 of 31



the profession or business of pharmacy. Section 10 of the Act
stipulates that the Pharmacy Council of India may make the
Education Regulations, prescribing the minimum standard of
education required for qualification as a pharmacist. Sections 31
and 32 pertain to the registration of a person having the requisite
qualification in the register. Further, Section 42 stipulates that no
person other than a registered pharmacist or a medical
practitioner shall be permitted to practice pharmacy. Therefore,
the scope of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, is limited to regulating the
educational qualifications and professional conduct in the
practice of pharmacy. 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. Its scope does not extend to conferring a right to
public employment.
48. The Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 have been
framed in exercise of the powers under Sections 10 and 18 of the
Act. The objectives of the Regulations are stated to be improving
the quality of health care, ensuring high professional standards
among pharmacists, reducing health care costs, and preventing
the criminal misuse of medication. Additionally, Clause 2(h) of
the Regulations provides the various classes of pharmacy
practitioners including community pharmacist, hospital
pharmacist, drug information pharmacist, and clinical
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 20 of 31



pharmacist. These Regulations govern professional practice and
conduct. They do not govern public recruitment nor do they
restrict the discretion of the State, as an employer, to select
candidates from within the larger pool of registered pharmacists
for specific public posts.
49. 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
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.
No conflict arises unless the State appoints someone lacking the
minimum technical qualification.
50. Once repugnancy is ruled out, the determination of
eligibility criteria squarely falls within the domain of the
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 21 of 31



employer. The power to frame rules under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India empowers the State to determine the most
suitable qualifications for public posts based on its independent
assessment.
51. This position has been recognised by the Patna High Court
in Bihar Rajya Berojgar Bheshagya Sangh (supra) . The Court
held that:
“ 7. …The fixing of minimum qualification for
recruitment to any service cadre under the State is
to be decided by the employer i.e., the State. The
power of judicial review in such cases is limited to
either the provision being unreasonable or having
no bearing or nexus to the purpose for which such
provision has been made, which in the present case
is recruitment to the post of Pharmacist. In the
present case, we do not find any repugnancy
between the Cadre Rules, 2014 and the Act as both
operate in different fields. The Act relates to fixing
of the minimum qualification for the purpose of
pursuing and obtaining Diploma in Pharmacy. The
Act is for the purpose of determining the eligibility
to practice as a Pharmacist, whereas, it is for the
State to decide as to what qualification it would fix
for recruiting persons in the Pharmacist cadre
created by the Health Department of the State
Government. The purpose of the Act is to maintain
the standard of education relating to award of
Diploma in Pharmacy for making a person eligible
to practice as a Pharmacist. Thus, persons not
confirming to the same, are not qualified either for
registration or to practice as Pharmacist. However,
when it comes to recruitment to a post, it is the
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 22 of 31



employer who can set a higher standard which is
the case with the Cadre Rules, 2014 ….”

(emphasis suppled)

52. Further, the discretion of the employer to prescribe
qualifications has been repeatedly affirmed by this Court and
various High Courts. In J&K Service Selection Recruitment
Board (supra) , the primary question was whether a Bachelors’
degree in Pharmacy could be treated as higher vis-a-vis the
qualification of Diploma prescribed by the Rules for the post of
Junior Pharmacist. It was observed by the J&K High Court that:

“ 16. … It is the Government which is competent to
decide what should be the qualification prescribed
for a post and, in the instant case, the Government
has, in fact, made Rules, namely, prescribing the
qualifications. These Rules do not contain any
provision stating that B. Pharmacy is equivalent to
Diploma in Pharmacy or that B. Pharmacy
presupposes acquisition of Diploma in Pharmacy.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that this
Court does not have the power to substitute the
Government’s policy or decision in this regard by
its own opinion or view, or to add to the Rules what
is not contained therein .”

The SLP filed against the said judgement was dismissed by the
Supreme Court, conferring finality to the case.
53. In Jyoti K.K. (supra) , the issue was whether degree holders
could be considered for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in
the Kerala State Electricity Board, which had prescribed diploma
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 23 of 31



in Electrical Engineering as the eligibility criteria. This Court
took into consideration Rule 10(a)(ii) of the Kerala State and
Subordinate Services Rules 1956, which provided that
notwithstanding anything contained in the said rules, higher
qualifications which pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for the post would also be sufficient for
the post. This Court, basing its decision on Rule 10 held that
persons with higher qualification would also be eligible.
Specifically, it was observed that:

“ 7 ….. when a qualification has been set out under
the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any
manner whittled down and a different qualification
cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified
in stating that the higher qualification must clearly
indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower
qualification prescribed for that post in order to
attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of
those higher qualifications which presuppose the
acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed
for the post shall also be sufficient for the post……

9. In the event the Government is of the view that
only diploma-holders should have applied to post of
sub-Engineers but not all those who possess higher
qualifications, either this Rule should have
excluded in respect of candidates who possess
higher qualifications or the position should have
been made clear that degree-holder shall not be
eligible to apply for such post …..”

SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 24 of 31



54. In Anita (supra), applications were invited for JBT/ETT
qualified teachers. Under the rules, the prescribed qualification
for a JBT teacher included a Matric with a two years’ course in
JBT training and knowledge of Punjabi and Hindi of the
Matriculation standard or its equivalent. This Court held that
none of the respondents held the prescribed qualification and
an M.A., M.Sc. or M.Com. could not be treated as a higher
qualification. Jyoti K.K. (supra) was distinguished because the
appointing authority had the option of considering appointment
of persons with higher qualifications.
55. In Zahoor Ahmad Rather (supra) , the post in question
was Technician-III in the Power Development Department in the
State of Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant stipulation with
respect to qualification was Matric with ITI in the relevant trade.
The appellants held diploma in Electrical Engineering and were
included in the list of disqualified candidates. The Court
observed that:
“ 26 . ….The prescription of qualifications for a post
is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the
employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications
as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role
or function of judicial review to expand upon the
ambit of the prescribed qualifications….
The decision in Jyoti K.K. turned on a specific
statutory rule under which the holding of a higher
qualification could presuppose the acquisition of a
lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 25 of 31



the present case makes a crucial difference to the
ultimate outcome.”

56. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra Public Service
Commission (supra) reiterated that the essential qualifications
for appointment to a post are for the employer to decide. The
court cannot lay down the conditions of eligibility, much less can
it delve into the issue with regard to desirable qualifications being
at par with the essential eligibility by an interpretive re-writing
of the advertisement. Question of equivalence will also fall
outside the domain of judicial review. If the language of the
advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot sit in
judgment over the same.
57. In Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank & Anr. v. Anit
Kumar Das , (2021) 12 SCC 80 , this Court held that the relevancy
and suitability of qualifications lie within the exclusive domain
of the employer.
58. In Puneet Sharma & Ors. v. Himachal Pradesh State
Electricity Board Limited & Anr. , (2021) 16 SCC 340, the issue
was whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and
Electronics Engineering is a technically higher qualification than
a diploma in that discipline and whether degree-holders would be
eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers
(Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules. The Supreme
Court took into consideration the decisions in Jyoti KK (supra),
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 26 of 31



Anita (supra), Zahoor Ahmed (supra) and observed that these
were quite different from the facts of this case and permitted
degree-holders to apply only because the recruitment rules
themselves contemplated such inclusion through express sub-
quotas. The Court also relied on a subsequent amendment to the
rules declaring that those with higher qualifications are also
entitled to apply or be considered for appointment, and thus,
allowed the degree-holders also to participate.
59. Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for
the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and
suitability of qualifications. The power of judicial review in
matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative
competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, if
any. Courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence
of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of
the employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public
employment does not extend to questioning the State’s wisdom
or policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for
a public post. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the
needs and interests of an institution, an industry or an
establishment, as the case may be. Similarly, equivalence of a
qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise
of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular
qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 27 of 31



matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The
assessment of the expediency, advisability or utility of such
prescription of qualifications do not warrant intervention of the
Courts unless the same are shown to be perverse. However, at the
same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily in prescribing
qualifications for posts.
60. In Zahoor Ahmed (supra) , this Court cautioned,
“ 27. While prescribing the qualifications for a post,
the State, as employer, may legitimately bear in
mind several features including the nature of the
job, the aptitudes requisite for the efficient
discharge of duties, the functionality of a
qualification and the content of the course of studies
which leads up to the acquisition of a qualification.
The State is entrusted with the authority to assess
the needs of its public services. Exigencies of
administration, it is trite law, fall within the domain
of administrative decision-making. The State as a
public employer may well take into account social
perspectives that require the creation of job
opportunities across the societal structure. All these
are essentially matters of policy. Judicial review
must tread warily…..”

61. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the prescription of
eligibility criteria of 10+2 with Diploma in Pharmacy by the State
cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The State has
articulated its rationale with reference to differences in course
structure and the comparatively limited avenues of employment
available to Diploma holders.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 28 of 31



62. The course structure of Diploma in Pharmacy is governed
by the Education Regulations, 1991, which has been replaced by
the Education Regulation, 2020. The Diploma in Pharmacy
course mandates 500 hours of compulsory practical training,
including 250 hours devoted to dispensing prescriptions. The
2020 Regulation has refined the scope of training, limiting it to
hospital, dispensary, or clinic-based activities. While, under the
B. Pharma course Regulations, 2014, degree students are
required to undergo 150 hours of practical training and they have
the option to undertake the training either in a hospital/
community centre or within the pharmaceutical industry. The
diplomates and graduates are trained in different subjects. Merely
because there is a provision for lateral entry of diplomates in the
second year of B. Pharm course, it does not render the degree an
in-line higher qualification. A qualification in one stream does
not presuppose a qualification in another. Furthermore, the
diplomates have limited employment avenues as compared to
degree holders. Thus, the decision of the State in making
possession of a Diploma an essential qualification for
appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary. 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.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 29 of 31



63. This policy rationale finds reinforcement in a decision by
the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Power (Holding)
Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors. in LPA No.
1416 of 2018 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11096 of 2018 ,
wherein it was held that,
“…. it was a matter of policy to offer the employment
only to Diploma holders who have no avenues that
are available to Degree holders. The Degree
holders have job opportunities on the post of
Assistant Engineers, Executive Engineers and other
posts which are not available to Diploma holders
and they are confined only to offer themselves for
the post of Junior Engineers under the scheme of the
conditions of service of the appellant company.
Thus, the decision to offer the post of Junior
Electrical Engineer to only Diploma holders does
not amount to such prohibition against Degree
holders that may allow us to invoke Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India in favour of the
Degree holders who still have other job
opportunities… .”
(emphasis supplied)

64. Additionally, there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or
postgraduate degree holders. They remain eligible, provided they
possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. No
disproportionate harm is caused to them so as to attract Articles
14 or 16 of the Constitution.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 30 of 31



65. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity
in the reasoning or conclusion of the Division Bench in
upholding the validity of the Cadre Rules.
66. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Contempt Petition
(@ Diary No. 44226 of 2025) is also dismissed. I.A. No. 152532
of 2025 is allowed. Other pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of. No order as to costs.

















...…………………………………J.
[M. M. SUNDRESH]






...…………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi
January 16, 2026.
SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 & Ors. Page 31 of 31