The Supreme Court on January 16, 2026, upheld the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, as amended in 2024, holding that candidates possessing Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharma) or Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharma) degrees are not eligible for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) in Bihar unless they also hold a Diploma in Pharmacy.
Dismissing a batch of appeals, the Court ruled that fixation of essential qualifications for public employment lies within the exclusive domain of the State and does not conflict with the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
Statutory Framework and Rule Under Challenge
Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 prescribes the minimum qualification for direct recruitment as Intermediate (10+2 Science) along with passing all parts of a Diploma in Pharmacy.
The 2024 amendment clarified eligibility for degree-holders through a note appended to Appendix-I, which reads:
“Note: B. Pharma & M. Pharma certificate holders may be eligible provided they possess qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.”
The appellants, all registered pharmacists holding B.Pharma or M.Pharma degrees but not diplomas, challenged this stipulation as unconstitutional and repugnant to central law.
Core Issue Before the Court
The Supreme Court framed the controversy in the following terms:
“The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the High Court erred in upholding the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended by the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024). More particularly, the question is whether candidates holding Bachelor or Master of Pharmacy degrees, without possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy, satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) under the said Rules.”
Court on the Role of Pharmacists in Public Health
Emphasising the nature of duties attached to the post, the Court observed:
“A pharmacist forms an integral part of the public health delivery system. In Government hospitals, dispensaries and primary health centres, the pharmacist is entrusted with responsibilities relating to storage, dispensing and management of medicines, adherence to prescription protocols, maintenance of drug inventories, patient counselling and compliance with regulatory requirements.”
This functional assessment was central to evaluating the State’s justification for preferring diploma-trained candidates.
No Repugnancy With the Pharmacy Act, 1948
Rejecting the argument that the cadre rules conflicted with central legislation, the Court made a clear doctrinal distinction:
“The Act creates a pool of persons eligible to practise as pharmacists; it does not mandate that every registered pharmacist must be considered for appointment to public posts.”
The Court further clarified:
“The Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 certify who is technically competent to practice as a pharmacist, while the Cadre Rules reflect the State’s policy choice in selecting from the broader pool for public employment.”
Holding that both operate in different fields, the Court concluded:
“No conflict arises unless the State appoints someone lacking the minimum technical qualification.”
Employer’s Exclusive Domain in Fixing Qualifications
Relying on settled precedent, the Court reaffirmed limits on judicial review in recruitment matters:
“The power of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer.”
It cautioned that courts must not interfere with policy choices unless they are perverse or irrational.
Diploma and Degree Not Interchangeable
Addressing the contention that B.Pharma is a higher qualification in the same educational channel, the Court categorically held:
“Merely because there is a provision for lateral entry of diplomates in the second year of B. Pharm course, it does not render the degree an in-line higher qualification. A qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in another.”
The Court noted the distinct training structures, particularly the mandatory 500 hours of hospital-based training required for diploma holders.
Rational Basis for Classification
The State’s policy justification was upheld as constitutionally valid. The Court recorded:
“The State has merely identified a narrower catchment of candidates it considers most suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool of registered pharmacists.”
On the plea of discrimination, the Court held:
“There is no absolute exclusion of graduate or postgraduate degree holders. They remain eligible, provided they possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.”
Accordingly, no violation of Articles 14 or 16 was found.
Final Outcome
Concluding that the Patna High Court committed no error, the Supreme Court held:
“We find no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the Division Bench in upholding the validity of the Cadre Rules.”
All civil appeals were dismissed. The connected contempt petition was also dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
- Case Title: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Date of Judgment: January 16, 2026
- Citation: 2026 INSC 68
Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…
