A Constitution Bench led by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that States lack the power to use their rule-making authority under Article 309 of the Constitution to impose extra experience-related qualifications when the subject is already governed by central law.
The matter arose from a batch of appeals filed by the states of Haryana and Karnataka challenging decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court, which had struck down recruitment conditions imposed for the post of drug inspector.
The controversy began when the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) prescribed prior experience in manufacturing or testing Schedule C drugs as a mandatory qualification in its recruitment notifications. Similarly, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) required candidates to possess at least eighteen months’ experience in manufacturing or testing Schedule C and C-1 drugs, in addition to the prescribed educational qualifications.
Several candidates questioned these requirements before the respective High Courts, contending that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, fully occupy the field relating to qualifications for Drug Inspectors, leaving no scope for States to impose additional eligibility criteria. Accepting this contention, both High Courts quashed the recruitment processes, leading the States of Haryana and Karnataka to file appeals before the Supreme Court.
After hearing arguments, the Court analysed the legal framework governing Drug Inspector appointments and observed that:
“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.”
Judges noted that while both the center and the states may appoint drug inspectors under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the power to prescribe qualifications lies exclusively with the Central Government through rules framed under Sections 33 and 33N of the Act.
The Court explained that Rule 49 of the Drugs Rules, 1945 sets out the educational qualifications required for appointment as Drug Inspector, and that the experience mentioned in the proviso to Rule 49 applies only to authorization for certain inspection functions, not for initial eligibility.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the States of Haryana and Karnataka and upheld the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court and ruled :
“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”.
To view the official order click the link below:
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.