The Supreme Court has ruled that State governments cannot prescribe additional or different eligibility conditions for appointing Drug Inspectors beyond what is provided under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules. Recruitment must strictly follow the qualifications notified by the Central Government, and State service rules cannot override central law.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has clearly ruled that State governments cannot fix their own or extra eligibility conditions for appointment to the posts of Drug Inspector or Drug Control Officer when a central law already governs the subject.
The Court said that States cannot use their rule-making power under Article 309 of the Constitution to add qualifications that are different from or beyond what is provided under central legislation.
The Apex Court held that appointments to the post of Drug Inspector must strictly follow the qualifications laid down under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Any State service rules that make additional experience a compulsory qualification are illegal and cannot be enforced.
The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi while hearing a batch of civil appeals filed by the States of Haryana and Karnataka.
These appeals arose from earlier decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court, which had set aside recruitment advertisements and selection processes for Drug Inspectors.
The Supreme Court examined whether State governments could prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors that go beyond what has been notified by the Central Government. After analysing the legal framework, the Court observed,
“we have examined the scheme of the D&C Act and the Drug Rules, whereby it is clear that power of appointment may be co-extensive, but the person selected or appointed must possess the qualifications as prescribed under the D&C Act.”
The dispute began when the States of Haryana and Karnataka issued recruitment notifications for Drug Inspectors and Drug Control Officers.
In Haryana, the Haryana Public Service Commission required candidates to have prior experience in manufacturing or testing drugs mentioned in Schedule C of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. This requirement was based on State service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.
Similarly, in Karnataka, the Karnataka Public Service Commission issued notifications making it compulsory for candidates to have at least eighteen months’ experience in manufacturing or testing Schedule C or C-1 drugs, in addition to educational qualifications.
Several candidates challenged these requirements before the respective High Courts, arguing that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act fully covers the field of qualifications and that States do not have the authority to prescribe additional conditions.
Both High Courts agreed with the candidates and quashed the recruitment processes. Aggrieved by these decisions, the States approached the Supreme Court.
While deciding the matter, the Supreme Court traced the legislative history of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Court noted that even before independence, the Federal Legislature enacted the law after Provincial Legislatures passed resolutions allowing the Centre to regulate drugs uniformly across the country. After independence, the Act continued to operate as a central law under Article 372 of the Constitution.
The Court pointed out that no State legislature has amended the Act to give States the power to prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors. Interpreting Sections 21 and 33 of the Act, the Court clarified that although both the Centre and the States may appoint Drug Inspectors, the power to prescribe qualifications lies exclusively with the Central Government.
The Court emphasised that the word “prescribed” under the Act means qualifications prescribed only through rules made under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act itself. This completely rules out qualifications fixed through State service rules or executive instructions.
The Supreme Court also explained that Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 clearly lays down the educational qualifications for appointment as Drug Inspector.
The proviso to Rule 49 requires experience only for the limited purpose of authorising an inspector to inspect the manufacture of Schedule C drugs. This experience requirement cannot be treated as a mandatory condition for initial appointment.
According to the Court, when States convert this limited experience requirement into an essential qualification for recruitment, they directly conflict with central rules and encroach upon a field already occupied by Parliamentary legislation.
Rejecting the argument that Article 309 allows States to add such qualifications, the Court said that the rule-making power under Article 309 is not absolute. It is subject to constitutional limits and cannot override or dilute an existing central law operating in the same area.
The Court also referred to Section 38 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which requires that rules made under the Act must be placed before both Houses of Parliament. This, the Court said, further shows that Parliament intended exclusive central control over such rules.
Agreeing fully with the High Courts, the Supreme Court held that State rules prescribing experience as an essential qualification violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Court concluded,
“In view of the above, it is concluded that the powers so exercised either by the State of Haryana or Karnataka to prescribe such qualifications for appointment of Inspector, over and above the provisions of the Drug Rules, is completely alien, in particular when the subject was already occupied by the Central Government and the rules have been framed by it”.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the States of Haryana and Karnataka and upheld the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court.
The Court affirmed that recruitment to the posts of Drug Inspector and Drug Control Officer must strictly follow Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, without any additional qualifications imposed by State governments.
The States were represented by Additional Solicitor General Vikramjeet Banerjee and other senior law officers, while the respondents were represented by Senior Advocate P. Vishwanatha Shetty along with a team of advocates.
Case Title:
State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar & Ors. and connected matters
(Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 63).
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Drug Inspector
