Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 72

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. SUNDRESH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. – Appellants
VERSUS
The State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 295 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12236 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No. 296 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11572 of 2025) Civil Appeal No. 297 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 11752 of 2025) Contempt Petition Diary No. 44226/2025 Civil Appeal No. 298 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 19160 of 2025) Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 25910 of 2025)
Decided On : 16-01-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Dilip Singh, Adv. Mr. R Karthik, Adv. Ms. Maahi Singh, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Ms. Rachitta Rai, AOR Mr. Samresh Chandra Jha, Adv. Ms. Aditi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rana Prashant, Adv. Mr. Mahender Rathour, Adv. Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj P. Deo, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Harsh Jain, AOR Ms. Sanya Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vipin Rana, Adv. Mr. Ayush Negi, AOR Ms. Ritu, Adv. Mr. Vinay Panwar, Adv. Mr. Vishu Verma, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj P Deo, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appointment of Pharmacists – Prescription of eligibility criteria of 10+2 with Diploma in Pharmacy by State cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational – Rule 6(1) is Constitutionally valid.
(2) Power to frame rules under Article 309 of Constitution of India empowers State to determine the most suitable qualifications for public posts based on its independent assessment – Essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for employer to decide.

Headnote:
(A) Pharmacy Act, 1948 – Section 42 – Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 – Rule 6(1) – Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 – Clause 2(h) – Constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) – Fixation of minimum qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist – A Pharmacist forms integral part of public health delivery system – In Government hospitals, dispensaries and primary health centres, 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 – Public places great trust in knowledge, skills and professional judgments of pharmacists – Scope of Pharmacy Act, 1948, is limited to regulating educational qualifications and professional conduct in practice of pharmacy – 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 right to public employment. (Paras 42 and 47)
(B) Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 – Clause 2(h) – Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 – Rule 6(1) – Pharmacy Act, 1948 – Section 42 – Constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) – Fixation of minimum qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist – Repugnancy arises only where compliance with one law necessarily results in disobedience of another, or where both laws occupy same field and are irreconcilable – Cadre Rules operate in domain of public employment, while Act and Regulations operate in field of professional regulation – No conflict arises unless State appoints someone lacking minimum technical qualification – Once repugnancy is ruled out, determination of eligibility criteria squarely falls within domain of employer – Power to frame rules under Article 309 of Constitution of India empowers State to determine the most suitable qualifications for public posts based on its independent assessment – Essential qualifications for appointment to a post are for employer to decide – Court cannot lay down conditions of eligibility – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 49, 50 and 56)
(C) Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 – Rule 6(1) – Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 – Clause 2(h) – Pharmacy Act, 1948 – Section 42 – Constitution of India – Article 309 – Constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) – Prescription of eligibility criteria of 10+2 with Diploma in Pharmacy by State cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational – It is for employer to determine and decide relevancy and suitability of qualifications – Power of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights – Courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of employer – Scope of judicial review in matters of public employment does not extend to questioning State’s wisdom or policy in prescribing minimum eligibility requirements for a public post – Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view needs and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment – Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of power of judicial review – Qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in another – Diplomates have limited employment avenues as compared to degree holders – Decision of State in making possession of Diploma an essential qualification for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary – State has merely identified a narrower catchment of candidates it considers most suitable for a particular purpose, from within larger pool registered Pharmacists – Additionally, there is no absolute exclusion of graduate or postgraduate degree holders – They remain eligible, provided they possess essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy – No disproportionate harm is caused to them so as to attract Articles 14 or 16 of Constitution – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 59, 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66)
Facts of the case:
The core issue that arises for consideration is whether High Court erred in upholding constitutional validity of Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024). More particularly, question is whether candidates holding Bachelor or Master of Pharmacy degrees, without possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy, satisfy minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to post of Pharmacist (basic category) under said Rules.
Findings of Court:
While, under B. Pharma course Regulations, 2014, degree students are required to undergo 150 hours of practical training and they have option to undertake the training either in a hospital/ community centre or within pharmaceutical industry. The diplomates and graduates are trained in different subjects. Merely because there is a provision for lateral entry of diplomates in second year of B. Pharm course, it does not render degree an in-line higher qualification.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

The legal judgment confirms that the State of Bihar has the constitutional authority to set qualifications for public employment, including the requirement of a Diploma in Pharmacy for the post of Pharmacist. The Court emphasized that such qualification standards are within the employer's discretion and do not violate constitutional principles or conflict with central legislation, particularly the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 (!) (!) .

The Court clarified that the Pharmacy Act and Regulations primarily regulate the profession, standards, and registration of pharmacists, but do not mandate the appointment of all registered pharmacists to public posts. The State’s power to prescribe qualifications for specific public employment is distinct and falls within its policy domain (!) (!) . The Rules framing minimum qualifications are to be viewed as an exercise of this policy-making authority, and courts are limited to reviewing whether such rules are arbitrary or unreasonable (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Court held that the expression "minimum" qualification in the Rules indicates a threshold rather than an exclusionary criterion, especially when the Rules acknowledge higher qualifications as acceptable (!) (!) . The inclusion of a note permitting higher degree holders to apply demonstrates that the State recognized their eligibility, but this does not translate into a requirement that higher qualifications substitute or override the prescribed minimum qualification of a Diploma (!) (!) .

The Court also noted that the State's justification for requiring a Diploma—such as practical training and specific skill sets—is rational and based on the nature of the duties involved in public health services. The distinction between diploma and degree qualifications is a matter of policy and educational structure, and the State's decision to prescribe Diploma as an essential qualification is not arbitrary or irrational (!) (!) .

Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that the employer’s discretion in framing recruitment criteria, including the qualification standards, is protected from judicial interference unless shown to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The rules do not create unconstitutional micro-classifications, as they serve a rational purpose related to the effective delivery of public health services (!) (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the State’s qualification criteria, and clarified that the State has the constitutional and policy prerogative to set such standards for public employment, and that these standards are consistent with the overarching legislative framework governing the profession of pharmacy.

Table of Content
1. eligibility criteria for pharmacist position. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
2. arguments against the cadre rules' qualifications. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. defense of state's qualifications policy. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
4. judicial reasoning on qualifications' validity. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
5. affirmation of the division bench's decision. (Para 65)
6. dismissal of appeals and contempt petition. (Para 66)

JUDGMENT

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 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 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 participa