Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 846

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
RAJAN ROY, MANJIVE SHUKLA, JJ.

U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru Secy. – Appellant
Versus
Ashish Tyagi And Ors. – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 163 of 2021 Along with Writ A. No. 8721 of 2022
Decided On : 03-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Raj Kumar Upadhyaya R.K.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Pt. S. Chandra, Purnima Mayank, Vineet Kumar Pandey.

When a parliamentary enactment occupies the field of recruitment qualifications for a public post, state-framed service rules under the constitutional proviso cannot prescribe additional or conflicting criteria, as the former prevails over the latter under the doctrine of occupied field.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 (Proviso) - Doctrine of Occupied Field - Recruitment and conditions of service - Central legislation versus State rules - Where a central enactment occupies the field regarding prescription of qualifications for a public post, the state government lacks competence to frame conflicting rules under the proviso to Article 309. Any such rule prescribed by the state that is inconsistent with or attempts to expand the qualification framework already established by the central enactment is ultra vires and void. (Paras 5, 8, 10, 11)

(B) Recruitment - Qualification - Prescribed qualifications - Once statutory rules framed under a central enactment occupy the field, state authorities cannot impose additional or conflicting qualification requirements for public service appointments. Appointments already made in accordance with the essential qualifications prescribed by central rules, despite reliance on invalidated state rules, may be protected on equitable grounds to prevent injustice to incumbents who have served for significant durations. (Paras 13, 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The controversy involved a legal clash between state-framed service rules and central statutory rules concerning the educational and experiential qualifications for a specific technical administrative post. The petitioners challenged the validity of the state rules as unconstitutional for being in direct conflict with the comprehensive framework established by the central government under the relevant regulatory oversight.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the central enactment and its associated rules constitute the primary and exhaustive regulatory framework for prescribing qualifications. Consequently, the state rules, by imposing specific additional requirements, exceeded the legislative competence of the state.

Issues: The main issues were whether the state government possesses the legal authority to prescribe additional qualifications for a post already governed by a central legislative act, and whether long-standing appointments based on the invalidated rules should be quashed or permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: The doctrine of occupied field dictates that when the national legislature acts on a subject within the concurrent list and authorizes the central authority to prescribe qualifications, the state executive's rulemaking power under the constitutional proviso is displaced. Therefore, consistency with central directives is mandatory, and state-level additions to the prescribed qualification framework are untenable.

Result: Rules declared ultra vires in part; appeal allowed in part; existing appointments protected on equitable grounds; directive issued to facilitate participation of eligible candidates in future selections based on central qualifications.

Table of Content
1. procedural context regarding the constitutionality of state recruitment rules for drug inspectors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. the doctrine of occupied field prevents states from prescribing qualification rules that conflict with existing central legislation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. state rules (rule 8 of 2015) are ultra vires when they exceed competence by adding conditions to central rules established under the drugs and cosmetics act. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. balancing equitable non-interference with existing long-term appointments while securing future adherence to central recruitment qualifications. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Anurag Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent- petitioner, Shri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Commission and Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. There are two cases before us. One is Special Appeal No. 163 of 2021 filed by the U.P. Public Service Commission challenging a judgment and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 262 (S/S) of 2021 by which the selection to the post of Drug Inspector which was advertised on 10.08.2016 has been quashed. The other case is Writ A No. 8721 of 2022 filed by the petitioners wherein the vires of Rule 8 of U.P. Food and Drug Administration Department Gazetted Officers (Drug) Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2015') has been challenged apart from seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing the advertisement dated 18.05.2018 for the post of Drug Inspector. A Mandamus has also been sought for issuance of fresh advertisement for direct recruitment to the aforesaid post as per essential qualifications prescribed under the statutory rules i.e. Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The petitioners of this writ petition are respondents in the special appeal referred above, meaning thereby, they were petitioners in the writ petition out of which the said special appeal arises.

3. First and foremost, we will consider the relief prayed in the writ petition, specially with regard to the vires of Rule 8 of the Rules, 2015. Rule 8 of the Rules, 2015 reads as under:-

"8. Acadamic qualification A candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Inspector of Drugs must possess the following qualifications:

(i) Degree in Pharmacy or Pharmaceutical Sciences or Medicine with specialization in Clinical Pharmacology or Microbiology or equivalent from a recognized University.

(ii) (a) Eighteen months' experience in the manufacture of at least one of the substances specified in Schedule 'C' to the Drug and Cosmetics Rules, 1945; or

(b) Eighteen months' experience in testing of atleast one of the substances specified in Schedule 'C' to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 in laboratory approved for this purpose by the licensing authority; or

(c) Three years' experience in the inspection of firms manufacturing any of the substances specified in Schedule 'C' to the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 during the tenure of their services as Drug Inspector of any State Government or Central Government.

4. These rules have been made by the State Government in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Article 309 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-

"309. Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State - Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State:

Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(All) 846

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOWRAJAN ROY, MANJIVE SHUKLA, JJ. U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru Secy. – AppellantVersusAshish Tyagi And Ors. – RespondentsSpecial Appeal No. 163 of 2021 Along with Writ A. No. 8721 of 2022Decided On : 03-04-2026

When a parliamentary enactment occupies the field of recruitment qualifications for a public post, state-framed service rules under the constitutional proviso cannot prescribe additional or conflicting criteria, as the former prevails over the latter under the doctrine of occupied field.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
RAJAN ROY, MANJIVE SHUKLA, JJ.

U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru Secy. – Appellant
Versus
Ashish Tyagi And Ors. – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 163 of 2021 Along with Writ A. No. 8721 of 2022
Decided On : 03-04-2026