Sanjeev Kumar Mishra vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Pat) 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, ACJ and PARTHA SARTHY, J.
CWJC Nos. 313 with 72, 193, 428, 4980 and 4987 of 2025
(10.4.2025)
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra (in 313)
Abhishek Kumar & Anr. (in 72)
Puja & Ors. (in 193)
Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. (in 428)
Pharmay Council of India (in 4980)
Md Shahabuddin Ansari & Ors. (in 4987)
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents (in all)

Advocates:
For the Petitioners: M/s Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Adv., Prince Kumar Mishra (in 313); Prashant Sinha, Rishi Raj Raman, Ruchi Mandal, Aniket Rai, Kunal Kumar (in 72); Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Adv., Pushkar Bharadwaj, Raushan, Shubham Priyadarshi, Shreyashi Raj (in 193); Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Ayush Kumar (in 428); S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Adv., Parul Prasad (in 4980); Md. Mumtaz Uddin (in 4987).
For the State : M/s P.K. Shahi, AG, Vikas Kumar, Amish Kumar AC to AG, Vivek Prasad, GP-7, Supragya, AC to GP-7 (in all).
For the UOI : Ms. Shweta Verma, Sameer Sawan (in 313); Arjun Kumar, CGC (in 72); Bindhyachal Rai (in 193); Rana Vikram Singh, Dy. SGI Dr. Iti Suman, CGC (in 4987).
For the Respondent: M/s Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv., Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv., Shashi Bhushan Singh, P.K. Jha, Kanishka Shankar, Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Utsav(in all); Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, Utsav (in 72, 193, 428).
For the BTSC : M/s Nikesh Kumar, Akshansh Shanker (in all).
For the P.C.I. : M/s Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv., Parul Prasad (in all).

Headnote:
Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 – Rule 6(1) – Pharmacy Act, 1948 – Section 10 – Minimum educational qualification for appointment by direct recruitment to basic category posts of Pharmacists – Fixation of minimum qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist and "note" in Cadre Rules providing that holders of higher degree could apply but subject to their having obtained minimum qualification of diploma is neither arbitrary or exclusionary per se – There is no exclusion of graduate degree holders provided they possess basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy – Graduate and post-graduate degrees in Pharmacy are higher qualification but when essential/minimum qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy has been fixed in cadre rules, it cannot be tinkered with only on the ground of same not being wise or sound or as suggested, arbitrary – It cannot be said that impugned Cadre Rules has saddled graduates/post-graduates in Pharmacy to any disproportionate harm – B. Pharma and M. Pharma are not in same channel of education as that of diplomates, notwithstanding fact that diplomates can take lateral entry in B. Pharma course in its second year – In matters of appointment laying down and prescribing through rules, minimum qualification is prerogative and is in domain of administrative authorities, which cannot be impeached on the ground that it has to be tailor-made to suit certain individuals. (Paras 100, 110, 111, 112 and 113)
Interpretation of Statute – If two views are possible, one making the statute constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, former view must always be preferred – Every effort should be made to uphold constitutional validity of a statute – It should not be concern of Court whether legislation is in its opinion wise or unwise or sound or unsound – Legislature is the best Judge of what is good for community, by whose suffrage it comes into existence – Invalidating a statute is a grave step and must be taken in a very rare and exceptional circumstance – Power has to be exercised with great judicial restraint. (Paras 103 and 105)
Public Employment – Scope of Judicial Review – State is entrusted with authority to assess needs of Public Services – Exigencies of administration falls within domain of administrative decision-making – State is perfectly entitled as a Public Employer to take into account social perspectives requiring creation of job opportunities across societal structure, which would essentially fall in domain of policy matters – Judicial review must tread warily. (Para 86)

Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ. – All the writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 313 of 2025; 72 of 2025; 193 of 2025; 428 of 2025; 4980 of 2025; and 4987 of 2025, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as “impugned Rules of 2014”), in which, it has been stipulated that for appointment by direct recruitment to the basic category posts of Pharmacists, minimum educational qualification shall be Intermediate/10+2 (Science) and passing in all parts (Part-I, II & III) of Diploma in Pharmacy from the Institutions recognized by the Government and a certificate to that effect would be necessary, as being violative of and repugnant to the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations of 2015”) framed by the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “PCI”) under Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, which, inter alia, provides that the basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy and Bachelor Degree in Pharmacy would be necessary for the profession of Pharmacists.

3. Rule 6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014 have also been questioned on it being arbitrary and irrational.

4. The prayer in these petitions are also for declaration of the note provided in Rule 4 of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024 in Appendix-I stipulating that B. Pharma and M. Pharma certificate holders would also be eligible for applying for the posts of Pharmacists, provided they possess the qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.

5. In the alternative, a prayer has been made for reading down Rule 6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014, as amended, to mean and include that candidates holding degree qualification (B. Pharma and M. Pharma) would be eligible for the post of Pharmacists.

6. In C.W.J.C. No. 4980 of 2025, preferred on behalf of the PCI, the prayer is exactly the same, but along with the prayer for quashing of the Advertisement No. 22 of 2025, dated 10.03.2025, issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission, inviting applications for the post of Pharmacists under the Health Department, Government of Bihar, whereby only such candidates who have Diploma in Pharmacy could apply and that the holders of B. Pharma and M. Pharma degrees would be eligible only if they have the basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.

7. This prayer has been made on the ground that the PCI, which is the apex regulatory body for the Pharmacy profession in India, has the exclusive authority to regulate the qualification, qualification standards, professional conduct and all other matters related to Pharmacy practice including the matters related to Pharmacists Cadre and that no State or local body could enact rules contrary to the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the regulations framed thereunder, especially the Regulations of 2015.

8. The central issue in all these petitions are: (a) whether a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Governor, viz., the impugned Rules of 2014 could prescribe the basic/essential qualification for Pharmacists to be only Diploma in Pharmacy, even when under the Pharmacy Act of 1948 and the regulations framed thereunder, namely, the Pharmacy Practice Regulations of 2015, the basic qualification for the profession of Pharmacy is Diploma/Bachelor Degree in Pharmacy; (b) whether the rules in question entrench upon the occupied field of the Central Government; (c) whether B. Pharma/M. Pharma is a higher qualification than D. Pharma and; (d) whether B. Pharma/M. Pharma is in the same channel of learning, subsuming in itself the minimum/inferior qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.

9. The issues are not, by any chance, novel and have drawn judicial attention in a number of cases in different contexts.

10. Before coming to these core issues, it would be necessary to delve in some background facts.

11. All the writ petitioners are hol