MD. FIROZ MANSURI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR
State's Power to Prescribe Qualifications: Diploma in Pharmacy as Essential Qualification for Pharmacist Post Upheld; Degree Not Automatically Equivalent.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 68
Decision Date: 16-01-2026
List of Laws
The Constitution of India; The Pharmacy Act, 1948; Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015; Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014; Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024
- Facts: The Appellants, holders of B.Pharma and M.Pharma degrees, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024), which prescribes 'Diploma in Pharmacy' as the essential qualification for the post of Pharmacist (basic category). They argued that this rule is repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, which recognize both Diploma and Degree holders as eligible pharmacists. The Appellants contended that excluding degree holders without a diploma is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Procedural Posture: The Appellants filed writ proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, challenging the validity of the amended Cadre Rules. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of the amended Cadre Rules. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
- Issue: Did the High Court err in upholding the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended), which prescribes Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification for the post of Pharmacist (basic category), thereby excluding Bachelor's and Master's degree holders in Pharmacy who do not possess a Diploma? Is the State justified in prescribing a diploma as the essential qualification, even if degree holders are registered pharmacists under central legislation?
- Holding: No, the High Court did not err. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of the Cadre Rules.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, regulate the profession of pharmacy and set minimum standards for education and registration, but they do not govern public recruitment policies. The State, as an employer, has the discretion to prescribe qualifications for public posts based on its independent assessment, as empowered by Article 309 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that prescribing minimum eligibility qualifications is a matter of policy and lies outside the scope of judicial review unless arbitrary or irrational. The Court found that the State's rationale for preferring Diploma holders—differences in course structure, practical training, and employment avenues—was not arbitrary. The Court cited previous judgments, including Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors., to support the principle that the employer determines the relevancy and suitability of qualifications. The court also noted that degree holders are not absolutely excluded, as they remain eligible if they also possess a Diploma in Pharmacy.
🔒 For Members Only