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

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.