Excluding candidates with higher qualifications from eligibility for posts requiring a diploma is unconstitutional and ultra vires.

The petitioners, holding Bachelor of Pharmacy (B. Pharm) or higher degrees and registered with the Pharmacy Council, challenged an advertisement dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CGVYAPAM).

The advertisement restricted eligibility for the post of Pharmacist (Grade-II) exclusively to candidates possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy, thereby excluding degree holders.

The petitioners also challenged the vires of Entry No. 08 to Schedule-III of the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, which prescribed this restrictive criteria.

During the pendency of the writ, the State issued a communication on 08.08.2025, deciding to include Degree and Master of Pharmacy holders in the eligibility criteria for the current recruitment.

However, the petitioners sought a formal declaration regarding the unconstitutionality of the underlying Recruitment Rules to prevent future exclusions.

1. Whether the exclusion of candidates possessing higher qualifications (Degree/Postgraduate) in Pharmacy from the post of Pharmacist (Grade-II) is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether Entry No. 08 to Schedule-III of the Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, is ultra vires to the extent that it restricts eligibility solely to diploma holders.

The court applied Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

It relied on the principle that excluding candidates with higher qualifications in the same field, without a rational nexus to the object of recruitment, constitutes arbitrary classification.

The court further followed the precedent set in Arvind Kumar & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 1983 of 2025), where similar restrictive entries in recruitment rules were declared ultra vires.

The court reasoned that prescribing a "Diploma in Pharmacy" as the sole eligibility criterion while excluding higher qualifications like Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees in the same discipline is manifesty arbitrary.

The court found that such an exclusion lacks "intelligible differentia" or a "rational nexus" with the objective of recruiting competent pharmacists.

While the State had temporarily redressed the grievance via a departmental letter dated 08.08.2025 to allow degree holders in the current exam cycle, the court emphasized that the underlying Recruitment Rule itself remained flawed and required correction.

Since the issue was previously settled in Arvind Kumar, the court determined that the restrictive portion of Entry No. 08 of the 2013 Rules could not be sustained in law.

It declared Entry No. 08 to Schedule-III of the 2013 Recruitment Rules ultra vires to the extent that it restricts eligibility for Pharmacist (Grade-II) to diploma holders and excludes those with higher qualifications.

The Court directed the State of Chhattisgarh to formally amend the Rules to include Degree and higher qualifications in Pharmacy as eligible criteria within a reasonable period.

It further ordered that the benefit of this judgment shall apply to all similarly situated candidates.