SC Upholds Bihar Rules, Diploma in Pharmacy Mandatory for Government Pharmacist Posts

The verdict came in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025 and connected matters, titled MD. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. (Appellants) v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Respondents), delivered by a Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.

The controversy traces its roots to the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, which prescribed 10+2 (Science) plus Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum qualification for direct recruitment. Although the Rules carried a note stating that B.Pharm and M.Pharm holders “may also apply”, recruitment notifications consistently treated the diploma as mandatory.

Degree-holding pharmacists challenged this approach, arguing that higher qualifications in pharmacy should automatically make them eligible. In 2019, a Single Judge of the Patna High Court accepted this contention. However, a Division Bench reversed the decision in 2023, holding that higher qualifications could not substitute the basic diploma requirement.

Following further amendments in October 2024, which explicitly stated that B.Pharm and M.Pharm holders would be eligible only if they also possessed a Diploma in Pharmacy, the dispute resurfaced. The Patna High Court upheld the amended rules in April 2025, prompting the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The appellants, led by Md. Firoz Mansuri, contended that the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules were repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, framed by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI).

They argued that the central statutory framework recognises both Diploma and Degree holders as qualified pharmacists, and therefore the State could not lawfully exclude candidates holding B.Pharm and M.Pharm degrees from consideration for public employment. According to them, once a person is statutorily recognised as a pharmacist under central law, the State cannot create an artificial barrier to deny appointment in government service.

Elaborating further, the appellants asserted that B.Pharm and M.Pharm are higher qualifications than a Diploma in Pharmacy, particularly since diploma holders are permitted lateral entry into the degree course, which clearly establishes the diploma as a feeder qualification.

They contended that excluding degree holders solely on the ground of not possessing a diploma amounted to arbitrary and unreasonable classification, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it deprived similarly situated pharmacists of equal opportunity in public employment. The appellants also argued that the State had placed no empirical or scientific data on record to justify its claim that diploma holders were better suited for hospital or public health services. Several petitioners, they pointed out, had been working as contractual pharmacists for many years, and their exclusion from regular recruitment caused serious prejudice and denial of livelihood.

In support of their case, the appellants relied upon communications issued by the Pharmacy Council of India, asserting that the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 were binding on State governments and must be followed while framing recruitment policies.

Opposing the appeals, the State of Bihar maintained that the power to prescribe eligibility criteria for public posts lies squarely within the domain of the employer, and that courts should exercise restraint in interfering with such policy decisions.

The State contended that the Pharmacy Act, 1948 regulates who may practise the profession of pharmacy, but does not confer any vested right to appointment in government service, which remains a matter of State policy. It was emphasised that the Diploma in Pharmacy mandates 500 hours of compulsory hospital training, substantially higher than the mandatory practical training prescribed under the B.Pharm curriculum, making diploma holders better suited for hospital-based public health services.

The State further argued that degree holders enjoy significantly wider employment opportunities in pharmaceutical industries, research and academia, whereas diploma holders are largely dependent on government hospitals and public health institutions for employment.

According to the State, the Cadre Rules do not exclude degree holders altogether; rather, they only require such candidates to also possess the essential qualification of a Diploma in Pharmacy, a condition that is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. It was also submitted that judicial review cannot be used to rewrite recruitment rules, declare equivalence of qualifications, or substitute the employer’s policy judgment, particularly when the rule-making authority has consciously not treated the two qualifications as interchangeable.

The Supreme Court decisively rejected the claim of repugnancy between state rules and central legislation. The Bench drew a clear distinction between regulation of the profession and recruitment to public posts, observing:

“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.”

Highlighting the critical role of pharmacists in the public health system, the Court noted:

“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. The public places great trust in the knowledge, skills and professional judgments of pharmacists .”

The Court held that the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, govern professional conduct and standards, not state recruitment policy. It reaffirmed the long-settled principle that the employer is the best judge of the qualifications required for a post, provided the decision is not arbitrary.

Highlighting the functional differences between diploma and degree courses, the Court noted that:

“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.”

The Bench also accepted the State’s policy rationale of protecting employment opportunities for diploma holders, who have comparatively limited career options.

Dismissing all appeals, the Supreme Court concluded:

“We find no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the Division Bench in upholding the validity of the Cadre Rules.”

Also Read: Over 30% BPharm Seats, 815 MPharm Seats Still Vacant After Final CAP Round in Maharashtra

To view the official order, click the link below: