Allahabad HC Invalidates UP's Additional Drug Inspector Criteria, Applies 'Occupied Field' Doctrine

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on recruitment rules for Drug Inspectors, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench has held that the State of Uttar Pradesh lacks the authority to prescribe additional qualifications beyond those set by the Central Government under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla while deciding Special Appeal No. 163 of 2021 filed by the U.P. Public Service Commission along with a connected writ petition. The dispute arose from the selection process for Drug Inspectors advertised in 2016 and 2018, and the validity of Rule 8 of the U.P. Food and Drug Administration Department Gazetted Officers (Drug) Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2015.

The controversy centered around the qualifications required for the post of Drug Inspector. The petitioners, led by Ashish Tyagi and others, challenged the validity of Rule 8 of the 2015 Rules and the recruitment advertisement dated May 18, 2018. They argued that the State Government had unlawfully incorporated additional experience requirements as essential qualifications, which were not mandated under Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 framed by the Central Government.

On the other hand, the U.P. Public Service Commission and the State defended the rules, asserting their power under Article 309 of the Constitution to regulate recruitment and service conditions for state posts.

The petitioners contended that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is a central legislation governing the field, and it exclusively empowers the Central Government to prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors. They argued that Rule 49 of the 1945 Rules only prescribes educational qualifications, while the experience clause applies to specific duties and cannot be treated as a mandatory eligibility condition.

They further submitted that the State, by converting these experience conditions into essential qualifications under Rule 8, acted beyond its competence and created a direct conflict with central rules, thereby violating constitutional principles such as the doctrine of occupied field and Article 254.

The State Government and the Commission argued that under Entry 41 of the State List and Article 309 of the Constitution, the State has the authority to frame rules governing public services. They maintained that prescribing qualifications for recruitment to state services falls within their jurisdiction.

However, during the proceedings, the State could not effectively counter the legal position established by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Krishan Kumar, which held that central rules prevail where the field is already occupied.

The Court observed that the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 clearly vests the power to prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors with the Central Government. It emphasized that once the Central Government has framed rules under the Act, the State cannot override or alter them through rules made under Article 309.

The Bench held that the doctrine of “occupied field” squarely applies, meaning that when a central law governs a subject, any conflicting state rule must yield. The Court found that the State had improperly elevated experience requirements—meant only for specific functions—into essential qualifications.

The Court also noted that such an exercise by the State was not only beyond its competence but also in direct conflict with Rule 49 of the 1945 Rules.

The Court declared the impugned provisions unconstitutional and ruled:

“We, accordingly, declare Rule 8(ii)(a) to (c) of the Rules, 1945 as ultra vires. Consequences shall follow accordingly as per law.”

However, the Court refused to quash past selections and appointments, noting that selected candidates possessed the required central qualifications and had been serving for several years. It held that disturbing their appointments would be inequitable.

At the same time, the Court directed that all future and pending recruitments must strictly adhere to the qualifications prescribed by the Central Government. It also allowed the petitioners to participate in an ongoing recruitment process initiated in 2025.

The appeal was thus partly allowed, and the earlier judgment of the Single Judge was modified to this extent.

To view the official order, click the link below: