State governments cannot impose additional qualifications for Drug Inspectors as the field is occupied by Central legislation, rendering such state rules invalid.

JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present batch of appeals concerns the challenge to the power of the State Government to prescribe the essential qualifications different from the qualification prescribed by the Central Government under Rule 49 of the Drug Rules, 1945¹ [As amended by (Amendment) Rules, 2025] (in short, ‘Drug Rules’) framed in exercise of the power under Sections 6 (2), 12, 33 and 33N² [Chapter IVA – Provisions relating to [Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani] Drugs] of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short, ‘D&C Act’) for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector (in short, ‘DI’), or Drug Control Officer (in short, ‘DCO’).

3. These appeals arise from the proceedings in the State of Haryana and Karnataka respectively. Since there is a commonality of the facts and legal issues, they are being dealt with by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, we are first dealing with the facts of the appeals from the State of Haryana, followed by those from the State of Karnataka.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-1731 of 2023, Civil Appeal Nos. 1732- 1738 of 2023 and Diary No. 1909 of 2024

4. In Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-1731 of 2023 and Civil Appeal Nos. 1732-1738 of 2023, the State of Haryana and the participants, both have challenged the final impugned judgment dated 09.09.2022 of the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the letters patent appeal and connected civil writ petitions, whereby the High Court answered the reference and quashed the advertisement, which was followed by the corrigendum, for appointment to the post of DCO in the State of Haryana. In Diary No. 1909 of 2024, the sole participant has challenged the final impugned judgment dated 30.09.2022 of the Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the writ petition, whereby the High Court disposed of the same in terms of the Full Bench judgment of the High Court dated 09.09.2022.

5. The facts put in brief are that the Haryana Public Service Commission (in short, ‘HPSC’) issued an advertisement on 07.09.2015, which was published on 10.09.2015, followed by the corrigendum dated 04.06.2019 for appointment to the post of DCO, prescribing qualification under the Haryana Food and Drugs Administration Department, Subordinate Offices (Group B) Service Rules, 2018 (in short, ‘Rules of 2018’) framed in exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The essential qualification as specified was different from the qualification prescribed by the Central Government under the Drug Rules. Applying the Rules of 2018, the candidature of the participants was rejected for want of possessing the essential qualifications prescribed in the advertisement.

6. Being aggrieved, challenge was made before the High Court inter-alia contending that under Section 33 of the D&C Act, only the Central Government can make the rules for giving effect to the provisions of Chapter IV [Manufacture, Sale and Distribution of (Drugs and Cosmetics)] of D&C Act. (2)(b) of the D&C Act specifies that the Central Government may prescribe the qualification and duties of Government Analysts and the qualifications of Inspectors by making such rules necessary for giving effect to the provisions of the said Chapter. It may, under (2)(n), prescribe the powers and duties of Inspectors and specify the drugs or classes of drugs of cosmetics or classes of cosmetics in relation to which and the conditions, limitations or restrictions subject to which, such pow