The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, ruling that a Diploma in Pharmacy is the essential qualification for appointment as a Pharmacist, and that B.Pharma or M.Pharma alone does not confer eligibility.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a judgment impacting pharmacist recruitment in Bihar, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, as amended in 2024. The Court ruled that the State of Bihar’s power to prescribe a Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category).
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed a batch of appeals filed by candidates holding Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharma) and Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharma) degrees who challenged their exclusion from recruitment for not possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharma).
This decision resolves long-standing litigation between diploma holders, degree holders, and the State Government, and clarifies the relationship between central pharmacy regulations and state recruitment rules.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the Government of Bihar consistently prescribed a Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification for recruiting pharmacists in public health institutions.
Key Developments
The controversy traces its origin to the notification of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, which prescribed Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Pharmacist. In 2015, the Pharmacy Council of India framed the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, recognising both Diploma and Degree holders for professional practice.
The Cadre Rules were subsequently amended in 2017 and 2019, restructuring the cadre and modifying the recruitment process, while retaining Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification.
Disputes intensified in 2023, when conflicting decisions emerged from the Patna High Court, leading to interim permissions that allowed degree holders to participate in recruitment, pending final adjudication. During this period, the State of Bihar undertook a policy review and ultimately notified the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024, which expressly clarified that holders of B.Pharma and M.Pharma degrees would be eligible for appointment only if they also possessed a Diploma in Pharmacy.
The amended rules were upheld by the Patna High Court in 2025. The matter finally attained closure in January 2026, when the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeals, affirming the validity of the amended Cadre Rules and the State’s power to prescribe Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification.
Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the Bihar Cadre Rules are repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015
- Whether higher qualifications (B.Pharma/M.Pharma) automatically subsume the diploma qualification
- Whether the exclusion of degree holders without a diploma violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
- Scope of judicial review over recruitment qualifications fixed by the State
Arguments Presented
Degree Holder Pharmacists (Appellants):
The appellants contended that:
- The Pharmacy Act, 1948, and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, permit both diploma and degree holders to work as pharmacists.
- The State Rules were repugnant to central legislation, violating Article 254 of the Constitution.
- “Minimum qualification” should not exclude candidates with higher qualifications.
- Exclusion of degree holders violated Articles 14 and 16 (equality and equal opportunity in public employment).
- A diploma is a feeder qualification to B.Pharma, making degree holders academically superior.
- The classification amounted to impermissible micro-classification among registered pharmacists.
State of Bihar:
The State argued that:
- Fixing eligibility criteria is a policy decision within the employer’s domain.
- The Pharmacy Act regulates professional practice, not public recruitment.
- Diploma and Degree courses have distinct objectives and training structures.
- Diploma holders undergo 500 hours of mandatory hospital training, compared to 150 hours for degree holders.
- Degree holders have wider employment avenues, while diploma holders are largely confined to hospital services.
- Courts cannot rewrite recruitment rules or treat higher qualifications as equivalent unless rules expressly allow it.
Supreme Court’s Findings
1. No Repugnancy with the Pharmacy Act, 1948
The Court rejected the argument that the Bihar Rules conflict with the Pharmacy Act, 1948:
“The Act only creates a pool of eligible persons who may practise as pharmacists. It does not confer a right to public employment.”
The Court clarified that:
- Pharmacy Act & Regulations → regulate education, registration, and professional practice.
- Cadre Rules under Article 309 → govern public employment.
Since both operate in distinct fields, there is no repugnancy.
2. Employer’s Right to Prescribe Essential Qualifications
Reaffirming settled law, the Court ruled that the State, as employer, has exclusive authority to determine essential qualifications. Courts cannot treat higher qualifications as equivalent unless rules expressly permit.
The Court relied on precedents, including:
- Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad (2019)
- P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala (2003)
- Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala PSC (2010)
Since the Bihar rules do not state that B.Pharma presupposes D.Pharm, degree holders cannot claim automatic eligibility.
3. Rational Basis for Diploma Requirement
The Court accepted the State’s justification that:
- Diploma holders undergo 500 hours of mandatory hospital training, including dispensing.
- B.Pharma training may be industry-oriented and includes optional hospital exposure.
- Diploma holders have fewer employment avenues, justifying targeted recruitment.
Importantly, the Court noted:
“There is no absolute exclusion of degree holders. They remain eligible, provided they possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.”
This classification has an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to public health service delivery.
4. No Violation of Articles 14 and 16
The Court rejected claims of arbitrariness and micro-classification, holding that Degree holders are not excluded per se; they remain eligible if they also possess a diploma. Policy choices based on administrative exigencies and service needs are constitutionally valid.
The Supreme Court held that:
- Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules is constitutional and valid.
- Prescription of a Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
- Higher qualifications do not automatically substitute essential qualifications unless rules expressly provide so.
Therefore, appeals dismissed. Recruitment process upheld.
Case Title:
Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
SLP (Civil) No. 12236
READ JUDGMENT