1. Challenge to State Governments prescribing essential qualifications for Drug Inspector appointments different from those prescribed by the Central Government under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
The State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Krishan Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1725-1731 of 2023
With
Chetan Verma & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1732-1738 of 2023
With
Kiran Kumar M. – Appellant
Versus
Service Commission & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 239-240 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16490-16491 of 2023)
With
Parveen Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 241 of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2424 of 2026) [Diary No. 1909 of 2024]
Decided On : 13-01-2026
State governments cannot impose additional qualifications for Drug Inspectors as the field is occupied by Central legislation, rendering such state rules invalid.
Headnote:(A) Drug Rules, 1945 - Section 49 - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Sections 21, 33 - Appointment qualifications for Drug Inspectors - State rules prescribing additional qualifications invalid as Central legislation occupies the field - Experience requirement is not a condition for initial appointment but only for authorization to inspect - Appeals from Haryana and Karnataka dismissed, recognizing that only qualifications from Central legislation are valid. (Paras 9-10, 65, 70-71)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from challenges against the State Governments of Haryana and Karnataka regarding their power to prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors, where the qualifications imposed by the States were found to contradict those established by the Central Government under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. (Paras 4, 8, 9, 70)
Findings of Court:
The Court emphasized that only the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government under the Drugs Rules are valid for appointment as Drug Inspectors, overriding any conflicting State provisions. (Paras 9, 10, 70)
Issues: The core issue concerned the legality of States imposing additional qualifications beyond those established by Central legislation for the appointment of Drug Inspectors. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: Central legislation under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drug Rules take precedence over State rules regarding qualifications, particularly where such rules add experience requirements that are not aligned with primary legislation. (Paras 9, 10, 70)
Result: Appeals dismissed, confirming that State prescriptions for Drug Inspector qualifications were invalid as they conflicted with the established Central rules.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. States claim power to prescribe qualifications under Article 309; participants contend the Central Government has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 33 of the D&C Act. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
3. The Central Government exclusively prescribes Inspector qualifications under Section 33; Rule 49's experience proviso relates to specific authorizations, not initial appointment eligibility. (Para 31 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 53 , 54 )
4. Under the Doctrine of Occupied Field, State rules cannot override Central qualifications for statutory posts when the Central Government has exclusively exercised its rule-making power. (Para 43 , 45 , 56 )
5. State-prescribed experience requirements quashed; Public Service Commissions directed to re-draw selection lists based solely on qualifications prescribed in the Central Drug Rules. (Para 71 )
6. Can State Governments prescribe additional qualifications for the appointment of Drug Inspectors?
No. Section 33(2)(b) and (2)(n) of the D&C Act confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Central Government to prescribe qualifications. State rules framed under Article 309 or state statutes cannot override these Central qualifications. (Para 31 , 43 , 45 )
7. Does the experience requirement in the proviso to Rule 49 of the Drug Rules constitute an essential qualification for initial appointment?
No. The substantive part of Rule 49 sets the qualifications for appointment. The proviso only specifies the experience required for an already appointed Inspector to be authorized to inspect Schedule C substances. (Para 31 , 39 , 40 , 53 , 54 )
8. How does the Doctrine of Occupied Field apply to rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution?
Once a legislature enacts a law regulating conditions of service, the Executive's power under Article 309 is displaced. Rules made under Article 309 cannot supersede rules made by the legislature on the same subject. (Para 42 , 43 )
9. Does the power to appoint persons as the government thinks fit under Section 21 of the D&C Act include the power to prescribe qualifications?
No. While the power to appoint is co-extensive between Central and State Governments, the requirement to possess prescribed qualifications refers exclusively to rules made by the Central Government under Section 33. (Para 31 )
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 powers and duties can be exercised. In exercise of such powers, the Drug Rules were promulgated by the Centre, wherein Rule 49 prescribes the qualifications of a person who may be appointed as DI/DCO under the D&C Act. The proviso appended specifies that only those ‘Inspectors’ who possess experience in manufacture or testing or inspection, as the case may be, shall be authorised to inspect the manufacture of the substances as specified in Schedule C. Rules 51
