本科毕业生 challenged Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules requiring Diploma in Pharmacy as minimum qualification, arguing exclusion from recruitment violated Articles 14, 16. Bench upheld rules, distinguishing graduation from diploma training, and declined to read down qualifications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.313 of 2025
======================================================
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Son of Narsingh Mishra Resident of Bharpurwa, P.S.Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 72 of 2025
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 2/72
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 193 of 2025
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 3/72
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 428 of 2025
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 4/72
Puraini, P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 5/72
Kunj, Flat no 304. P.O-Bhagwat nagar, P.S.- Bhagwat nagar, District - Patna, Bihar, Pincode-800026.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 6/72
Village- Mahna kuli, P.O.-Chanpatia, P.S.-Chanpatia, District-West Champaran, Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 7/72
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4980 of 2025
======================================================
Pharmay Council of India I-300, 3rd floor, Tower-I, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi through its Registrar-cum-Secretary.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 8/72
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4987 of 2025
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 9/72
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 10/72
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
| (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case | No. 313 of 2025) |
|---|---|
| For the Petitioner/s : |
Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate |
| For the State : |
Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar AC to AG Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7 |
| For the UOI : |
Ms. Shweta Verma, Advocate Mr. Sameer Sawan, Advocate |
| For the Respondent : | Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate |
| Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate Mr. Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Utsav, Advocate |
|
| For the BTSC : |
Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate |
| For the P.C.I. : |
Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate |
| (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case | No. 72 of 2025) |
| For the Petitioner/s : |
Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rishi Raj Raman, Advocate Mrs. Ruchi Mandal, Advocate |
| Mr. Aniket Rai, Advocate |
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 11/72
Mr. Kunal Kumar, Advocate For the U.O.I. : Mr. Arjun Kumar, CGC For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7 For the P.C.I. : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate For the BTSC : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate Mr. Prafulla Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Utsav, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 193 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pushkar Bharadwaj, Advocate Mr. Raushan, Advocate Mr. Shubham Priyadarshi, Advocate Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate For the BTSC : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7 Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7 For the P.C.I. : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate Mr. Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Utsav, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 428 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate For the BTSC : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 12/72
| For the State | : | Mr. | P.K. Shahi, Advocate General |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. |
Vikas Kumar, Advocate Amish Kumar, Advocate Vivek Prasad, GP-7 Supragya, AC to GP-7 |
||
| For the P.C.I. | : | Mr. Mrs |
Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate . Parul Prasad, Advocate |
| For the Respondent | : | Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. |
Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate P.K. Jha, Advocate Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate Kanishka Shankar, Advocate Prafulla Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, Advocate Utsav, Advocate |
| (In Civil Writ Jurisdict | ion Ca | se No. 4 | 980 of 2025) |
| For the Petitioner/s | : | Mr. Mrs |
S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate . Parul Prasad, Advocate |
| For the State | : | Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. |
P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Vikas Kumar, Advocate Amish Kumar, Advocate Vivek Prasad, GP-7 |
| Ms. | Supragya, AC to GP-7 | ||
| For the BTSC | : | Mr. |
Nikesh Kumar, Advocate |
| Mr. | Akshansh Shanker, Advocate | ||
| For the Respondent | : | Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. |
Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate P.K. Jha, Advocate Kanishka Shankar, Advocate Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Utsav, Advocate |
| (In Civil Writ Jurisdict | ion Ca | se No. 4 | 987 of 2025) |
| For the Petitioner/s | : | Mr. | Md. Mumtaz Uddin, Advocate |
| For the P.C.I. | : | Mr. |
Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate |
| Mrs | . Parul Prasad, Advocate | ||
| For the State | : | Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. |
P.K. Shahi, Advocate General Vikas Kumar, Advocate Amish Kumar, Advocate Vivek Prasad, GP-7 |
| Ms. | Supragya, AC to GP-7 | ||
| For the BTSC | : | Mr. |
Nikesh Kumar, Advocate |
| Mr. | Akshansh Shanker, Advocate | ||
| For the UOI | : | Mr. Dr. |
Rana Vikram Singh, Dy. SGI Iti Suman, CGC |
| For the Respondent | : | Mr. | Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate |
| Mr. | Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate | ||
| Mr. | Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate |
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 13/72
Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate Mr. Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Utsav, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 10-04-2025
All the writ petitions have been heard together
and are being disposed off by this common judgment.
193 of 2025; 428 of 2025; 4980 of 2025; and 4987 of
2025, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule 6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as “impugned Rules of 2014”), in which, it has been stipulated that for appointment by direct recruitment to the basic category posts of Pharmacists, minimum educational qualification shall be Intermediate/10+2 (Science) and passing in all parts (Part-I, II & III) of Diploma in Pharmacy from the Institutions recognized by the Government and a certificate to that effect would be necessary, as being
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 14/72
violative of and repugnant to the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations
of 2015”) framed by the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “PCI”) under Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, which, inter alia, provides that the basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy and Bachelor Degree in Pharmacy would be necessary for the profession of Pharmacists.
have also been questioned on it being arbitrary and irrational.
declaration of the note provided in Rule 4 of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2024 in Appendix-I stipulating that B. Pharma and M. Pharma certificate holders would also be eligible for applying for the posts of Pharmacists, provided they possess the qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 15/72
reading down Rule 6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014, as amended, to mean and include that candidates holding degree qualification (B. Pharma and M. Pharma) would be eligible for the post of Pharmacists.
behalf of the PCI, the prayer is exactly the same, but along with the prayer for quashing of the Advertisement No. 22 of 2025, dated 10.03.2025, issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission, inviting applications for the post of Pharmacists under the Health Department, Government of Bihar, whereby only such candidates who
have Diploma in Pharmacy could apply and that the holders of B. Pharma and M. Pharma degrees would be eligible only if they have the basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.
the PCI, which is the apex regulatory body for the Pharmacy profession in India, has the exclusive authority to regulate the qualification, qualification standards,
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 16/72
professional conduct and all other matters related to Pharmacy practice including the matters related to Pharmacists Cadre and that no State or local body could enact rules contrary to the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the regulations framed thereunder, especially the Regulations of 2015.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 17/72
is in the same channel of learning, subsuming in itself the
minimum/inferior qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.
have drawn judicial attention in a number of cases in different contexts.
be necessary to delve in some background facts.
Bachelor of Pharmacy Degree and are also registered with the Bihar State Pharmacy Registration Council.
Pharmacist Cadre Rules of 2014 on 10.10.2014. Rule 6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014 provided that the minimum qualification for the post of Pharmacists would be Intermediate/10+2 (Science) pass. However in Appendix-I to the Rules, a “note” was provided that B. Pharma and M. Pharma Degree holders may also apply.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 18/72
2015, which was gazetted on 15.01.2015. These Regulations were framed under Sections 10 and 18 of the
Pharmacy Act of 1948. In Appendix-III of the Regulations of 2015, referred to above, the details of position, title and job responsibilities of Pharmacists have been provided. The basic qualification, according to the Regulation of 2015, is Diploma in Pharmacy/Bachelor in Pharmacy.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 19/72
Appendix remained the same, namely, that holders of B. Pharma and M. Pharma Degrees could also apply.
underwent a change in the year 2019, whereby Rule 7 was amended for providing selection process for Pharmacists, in which, the merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the marks awarded.
the validity of the Rules before this Court when a notification dated 05.04.2023 was issued for selection and appointment of persons as Pharmacists in the service of the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 20/72
Judge, seeking permission of graduates and postgraduates in Pharmacy to also apply, which prayer was allowed by the learned Single Judge. However, a Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of appeals, the lead case being L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020, vide judgment dated 10.01.2023 had set aside the decision of the learned Single Judge and had held that mere acquisition of higher qualification directly and without basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy would not entitle the graduates and post-graduates in Pharmacy to become eligible for participating in the process of selection and appointment to the post of Pharmacists. The reasons given by the Division Bench was that the standard of education and the syllabus for acquiring Diploma in Pharmacy and B. Pharma/M. Pharma are entirely different. The diploma holders generally work in various Health Departments, whereas graduates and post-graduates in Pharmacy are ordinarily engaged in industrial side where drugs and cosmetics are manufactured. They also have an avenue
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 21/72
of employment as Inspectors or higher promotional posts in that line in the Drugs Wing of the Health Department.
Court would be required to consider the correctness or
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 22/72
otherwise of the eligibility criteria imposed in the notification dated 05.04.2023 based on the impugned Rules of 2014.
also brought to the notice of this Court that a diplomate
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 23/72
gets lateral entry to the second year of the graduate course in B. Pharma, suggesting that B. Pharma was higher qualification in the same subject, enabling the holder thereof to gain employment as a Pharmacist with the Government. Initially, the Court was of the view that what is specified in the Cadre Rules is the minimum required qualification and, therefore, there would be no justification for not allowing persons with higher degrees in the same line of learning, from applying for the posts of Pharmacists.
which one of us (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) was a part, it was submitted that the recruitment notification would be withdrawn as the Cadre Rules were, perhaps, to be amended. The larger Bench, thus, found that the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 24/72
petitions had been rendered infructuous and, therefore, all the writ petitions were closed. However, it was clarified by order dated 06.11.2023 that if the Cadre Rules were not amended and the recruitment is initiated on the same very lines, the writ petitioners would be entitled to seek restoration of the writ petitions, but only in the circumstance of no amendment being made to the rules as it existed, dis-entitling the graduates to apply for the said post.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 25/72
constituted for the purpose for testing the validity of such qualification be revived; the writ petitions be restored and the issue be heard by the larger Bench. The rationale was that only when the Division Bench later did not find itself in agreement with the line of reasoning of the earlier Division Bench judgment, the matter per force was required to be referred to the larger Bench.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 26/72
a referral to the larger Bench again and the matter is required to be heard afresh.
have argued that when the Cadre Rules itself provides that B. Pharma and M. Pharma degree holders could apply for the post of Pharmacists, the intention of the rule making body is rendered apparent that it considers the graduates in Pharmacy to be holders of higher qualification, who would be entitled to be appointed to post of Pharmacists as it would be in accordance with the Regulations of 2015, which provides for the qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy and Bachelor in Pharmacy as the necessary qualification for the Pharmacists.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 27/72
posts on which the holders of B. Pharma and M. Pharma would be eligible to be appointed. Obviously, such a decision was taken on a consideration of the fact that Pharma D. is a higher qualification than B. Pharma and M. Pharma. It was also argued that the Government of Bihar, in several of its Departments, has permitted the graduates in Pharmacy also to apply for the post of Pharmacists.
Governments. It would be profitable to extract the aforenoted clarification dated 07.10.2022, which reads as hereunder:
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 28/72
the writ petitioners are that when the Rules provide for minimum educational qualification of diploma, it cannot be construed inter-changeably as essential educational qualification. The expression “minimum” has to be construed contextually, meaning thereby that it ought to be understood as a cut-off filter which normally, sans the change in the note in Appendix-I, ought not to debar
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 29/72
recruitment of higher qualified candidates.
Mrigank Mauli and Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, the learned Senior Advocates and Mr. Prashant Sinha, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners have further questioned the validity of Rule 6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014 on the grounds of proportionality, which doctrine has been used to test the validity of a statute. Under the principle of proportionality, any action of the State which allegedly violates the constitutionally protected right is required to be tested on three parameters namely: (a) the action must be sanctioned by law; (b) the proposed action is necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim and; (c) the extent to which such interference is permissible must be such as to be proportionate to the need for such interference.
case of K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India : (2019) 1 SCC 1 has formulated a four sub-component of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 30/72
proportionality need to be satisfied for a law to be valid and the conditions formulated are cumulative. To list them: (1) a measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal; (2) it must be a suitable means of furthering this goal; (3) there must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative and; (4) the measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder.
whether there exists a legitimate State interest and a rational nexus between the measure adopted and the object that it professes to fulfill. When the Supreme Court referred to legitimate State interest, what it meant was that the measure adopted to impair the constitutionality must be towards preserving a larger public interest and not any private interest of the parties involved. It is in this test that distinguishes the test of rational nexus which is employed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India to test the intelligible differentia
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 31/72
category.
judicial review, is required to see if the measure adopted to impair the constitutionally protected right, is actually necessary to achieve the legitimate State interest. The Courts are expected to see if there exists a range of alternative measures, which are less intrusive and that the alternative measures achieve the legitimate State interest in real and substantial manner.
legitimate State interest in excluding persons with higher qualification in the same line/channel of education, from the recruitment process without any basis. The only
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 32/72
rationale provided by the State and that also through inferential logic is that diploma holders are best suited for recruitment as Pharmacists in hospitals, whereas higher degree in Pharmacy would be more useful in the industrial side, namely, the manufacture of drugs etc. and that the avenues for appointment of diploma holders is limited and, therefore, their right should be protected. No empirical study has gone into this rationale as to the effectiveness of employing only diploma holders in Health Services as Pharmacists and that they have no other avenues of appointment. The disproportionate harm to the higher qualified aspirants has completely been ignored, thus making the rule arbitrary. It has directly and adversely affected the right to employment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the law of
equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors : (1989) 4
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 33/72
SCC 155 , it was held that the guarantee under Article 19(1)(g) would extend to practicing any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Profession means an occupation carried on by a person by virtue of his personal and specialized qualifications, training or skill. The word “occupation” has a wide meaning, such as regular work, profession, job, principal activity, employment, business or a calling in which an individual is engaged.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 34/72
Government jobs. Exclusion, seen in this perspective, would clearly be violative of the graduate degree holders’ right to be considered for appointment for Government jobs. This, in effect, impairs their right to life.
assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which comprehends something more than mere animal existence, i.e., dignity of an individual. Feild, J. in Munn Vs. Illionois : (1994) U.S. 113, 154 (1876) has held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. In Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation : (1985) 3 SCC 545 , the Supreme Court has further laid down that an equally important facet of right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.
wealth in which all citizens are equally entitled to share.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 35/72
The right to public employment and its concomitant right to livelihood is thus fortified under the canopy of the protective umbrella of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India [also refer to Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors. : (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 600 ].
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 36/72
the need of its own people and that its laws are directed to problems, made manifest by experience and that its discriminations are based on adequate grounds; (d) that the legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest; (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality, the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation and; (f) that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the Court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based.
however cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 37/72
reasons for subjecting certain individuals of or corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation.
the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment, in the present case, in the absence of any empirical study or formulations that Diploma in Pharmacy is better suited for hospital administration and that the holders of diploma have lesser windows/opening for public employment for the post of Pharmacists in hospitals, it is necessary to exclude the higher degree holders from participation. This rationale belies the factual scenario existing today and is also not in consonance with the Pharmacy Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, which recognize the Diploma and B.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 38/72
Pharma as degrees entitling the holders thereof to carry on the vocation/profession of Pharmacists. A Pharmacist
would be required to do his job in Hospitals; in the industrial wing of the Health Department; in the Industry of manufacturing drugs as Drug Inspectors and at all places and positions where there is a requirement of a Pharmacist. It is only for this that the State Government in its Insurance Sector and other Departments have not made any such exclusion with respect to higher degree holders. It is also not in dispute that course curriculum for a Diploma and B. Pharma are the same so far as core subjects are concerned, which the Central Government also recognizes.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 39/72
bearing a reasonable and just relation to the things in respect to which the classification is made; and classification made without any reasonable basis should be regarded as invalid. If classification is made on irrelevant factors or not recognizing relevant factors, such classification cannot withstand the challenge of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 40/72
contained in the impugned Rules of 2014 and the central legislation in a harmonious manner so as to avoid the declaration of invalidity. It could be best done by deleting the “note” in the impugned Rules that only those B. Pharma and M. Pharma holders could apply to the recruitment process who essentially have acquired Diploma in Pharmacy.
State of Jharkhand and Ors. : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 336/2025 SCC OnLine SC 595 , the Supreme Court has held that candidates cannot be solely rejected on the ground of their having higher degrees than prescribed qualification.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 41/72
of 2014, which is not in consonance, but in derogation of the Central Act. Even though, the impugned Rules occupies different field, yet the constitutional validity can be tested on the ground that the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, whereby a class within a class has been carved out, tantamounting to class legislation, which not only offends Article 14 but also Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
by the State serves no purpose and has no substantial basis. The sub-categorization of the classification is patently unreasonable [also refer to State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Singh : (2025) 1 SCC 1/2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860 ].
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 42/72
that in exercise of powers vested in the Pharmacy Act, 1948, the PCI has framed a number of Regulations for prescribing minimum standards of education as well as regulating the subject of Pharmacy in India. As per the preamble of the Pharmacy Act of 1948, it has been enacted to make better provisions for the regulation of the profession and practice of Pharmacy and for that purpose to constitute Pharmacy Councils. The Act ensures that there is a seamless regulation of the profession.
the approval of courses; laying down course contents; eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers; evaluation standards of examination; grant of registration; entry of higher qualification in the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 43/72
discipline; taking action for infamous conduct, etc. It is a complete code in itself, which recognizes Diploma and B.
Pharma, both, as the core qualification for a Pharmacist. The distinction sought to be made by the State is, thus, impermissible. The subject of Pharmacy is special and not general and, therefore, in all its perspectives, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 must prevail. It is not for the State to reject the declaration of the Pharmacy Act that both D. Pharma and B. Pharma degree holders have the entitlement to be a Pharmacist, subject to their registration with the respective State Councils.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 44/72
10+2 with Science, which is nothing but microclassification.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 45/72
an institution recognized under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 46/72
registered Pharmacist in an other State.
member of the health care team. Their role have become very important as they are the common point of contact between the patients and the Doctors and are trained to play a key role, both in disease prevention and drug safety.
the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State is that the issue in question is no longer res-integra as it has
been settled by a plethora of precedents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 47/72
Power (Holding) Company Ltd. through its Chairman &
Ors. Vs. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors.] , wherein the issue was whether the prescription of requisite qualification for recruitment as Junior Electric Engineer being Diploma in Electrical Engineer from a recognized institute/college duly recognized by the State/Central Government approved by the AICTE, could be questioned on the ground of such prescription confining the eligibility qualification to the diploma holders only, the Division Bench of this Court held that it was always open for the employer to prescribe the qualifications and if any alteration is made as against the earlier policy, the same cannot be said to be suffering from any arbitrariness or violation of law; which judgment was based on an analysis of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. & Ors. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. : (2010) 15 SCC 596; State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan & Anr. : (2006) 11 SCC 153; State
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 48/72
of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Anita & Ors. : (2015) 2 SCC 170; P.M. Latha & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. : (2003) 3 SCC 541; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) : (2003) 3 SCC 548 . The view of the Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court in special leave to appeal, bearing S.L.P. No. 1187 of 2019 [The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. through its Chairman and two others. Vs. Md. Asif Hussain and five others] .
of this Court in L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020 [The State of
Bihar & Anr. Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors.] and connected appeals, wherein it was held that mere acquisition of higher qualification directly and without basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy would not enable any higher degree holder to participate in the process of selection where the minimum qualification fixed was diploma.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 49/72
being C.W.J.C. No. 7714 of 2023 [Appu Kumar Vs. The
State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Bihar] , this Court, in the same composition, had the occasion to deal with a similar issue. In that case, the petitioners had B.Tech Civil Degree from institutions recognized by AICTE, who had challenged the constitutionality of Rule 8 (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar Water Resource Department Subordinate Engineering (Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2023, which prescribed diploma or equivalent in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical Engineering as the qualification for appointment to posts of Junior Engineer on the ground of same being arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional. The challenge was primarily on the ground that the normal rule is that the candidates with higher education ought to be deemed to be fulfilling the lesser qualification prescribed for the post if the higher qualification is in the same channel/line. Reading the technical qualification prescribed in the rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 50/72
narrowly would lead to shutting out eligible candidates with higher Degree of Engineering in the same line as of
Diploma in Civil Engineering.
Jyoti K.K. (supra) and Puneet Sharma & Ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. :
(2021) 16 SCC 340 .
Public Service Commission had issued notification
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 51/72
providing diploma in Electrical Engineering of a recognized institution after three years course of study as the qualification for the post. The B.Tech degree holders in Electrical Engineering and persons holding bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering were ousted from the zone of consideration. The Kerala Public Service Commission had contended that graduates in engineering and persons possessing other qualification than what was prescribed in the advertisement could not have been taken as a higher qualification as those were not equivalent qualification prescribed for that post and the persons who possessed higher qualifications could only be considered in cases where they acquired such higher qualification after acquiring the prescribed qualification. However, a provision in the Kerala State and Subordinate
Services Rules 1956 provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the rules, higher qualifications which pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post would also be
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 52/72
sufÏcient for the post. The Kerala High Court had rejected the contentions of the applicants but the Supreme Court had held that in the event of the Government holding the view that only diploma-holders should have applied for the post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who possessed higher qualification, either the rule in question should have excluded the candidates who possessed higher qualification or the position should have been made clear that degree-holders shall not be eligible to apply for such post. When that position is not clear but on the other hand, the rules do not disqualify per se the holders of the higher qualifications in the same faculty, it was clear that the rule was not understood in an appropriate manner. The order of the High Court, therefore, was not sustained and it was found that persons with higher qualification also would be eligible. However, since the diploma holders had already been selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the Supreme Court chose not to disturb such appointments
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 53/72
but directed the State to consider the case of eligible degree-holders against existing vacancies.
on a provision of the rules which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any rules or special rules or qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of the Govt. as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the special rules, such of those higher qualifications would pre-suppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post as that also shall be sufÏcient.
Court was confronted with the issue whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering is a technically higher qualification than a diploma in that discipline and whether degree-holders would be eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 54/72
provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) there was matriculation with diploma in Electrical/Electronics/Electronics and Communication/ Computer Science from the recognized Institutions /Board/University duly recognized by the Central or State Govt.
and had argued that the qualifications possessed by the degree-holders was neither higher nor to be considered in view of the Recruitment Rules as also on the basis of the
advertisement issued for the purpose by the Himachal
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 55/72
Pradesh Staff Selection Commission.
contended that in the event of minimum qualification being prescribed without any bar preventing appointment of degree holders to the post, diploma had to be considered as only a minimum requirement, especially in view of the rules for appointment to higher promotional post of Assistant Engineers Electrical providing for 5% quota for those who possessed degree at the time of their appointment as Junior Engineer Electrical and 5% separately for those who would acquire the degree during their service as Junior Engineer Electrical after their confirmation. The minimum qualification prescribed would definitely entitle an employer to choose a person with higher qualification as “minimum” provides a cut-off filter for the same and does not debar recruitment of candidates having higher qualification.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 56/72
had argued that the Rule in question ought to be interpreted and applied to permit degree-holders a chance
at selection. Not doing so would amount to excluding better qualified persons and to rob the employer of the chance of choosing a better qualified candidate.
referred to the judgment in P.M. Latha Vs. State of Kerela : (2003) 3 SCC 541 . The issue in P.M. Latha (supra) was whether the prescribed and advertised qualification of Trained Teacher’s Certificate (TTC)
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 57/72
included persons who were having B-Ed degrees. The Supreme Court had held that B-Ed qualification could not be considered as a higher qualification than TTC and that the TTC qualification was given to teachers especially trained to teach small children of primary classes, whereas those with B-Ed were trained to impart education to students of higher classes.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 58/72
two years Junior Basic Teachers Training. It was held that those with M.Sc, B.Ed and M.A qualifications were ineligible, looking at the nature of the job which was of teaching primary classes.
made with the facts in Jyoti (supra), as in Jyoti the Appointing Authority had the option of considering appointment of persons with higher qualifications.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 59/72
features including the nature of the job; the aptitudes requisite for the ofÏcial discharge of duties; the functionality of a qualification and the content of the course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to assess the needs of the Public Services. Exigencies of administration falls within the domain of administrative decision-making. The State is perfectly entitled as a Public Employer to take into account social perspectives requiring creation of job opportunities across the societal structure, which would essentially fall in the domain of policy matters. Judicial review must tread warily.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 60/72
noted judgments, the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma and Others (supra), referred to above, examined the Rules, especially the sub-quotas for 5 percent of the candidates who would be diploma holders who would acquire degree qualification during service as Junior Engineers and 5 percent for those candidates, who would acquire degrees before joining as Junior Engineers.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 61/72
holding higher qualification would be eligible to compete. Though, the amending rules were brought into force prospectively but since they were only clarificatory, it was held that they would apply to the recruitment which was the subject matter of the controversy from before.
Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.] , therefore, concluded as hereunder:-
(a) the Rules in question are very specific with respect to the qualification prescribed for the post of Junior Engineer, which is diploma in Civil, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering;
(b) There is no rationale behind holding a degree in such discipline to be in-line/channel higher qualification which would subsume in itself the lesser qualification of diploma;
(c) The prescription of qualification for post is a matter of recruitment policy and the State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as the condition of eligibility;
(d) It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications;
(e) Equivalence of a qualification is also not a
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
62/72
matter which could be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review, which squarely falls in the domain of the State/Recruiting Authority;
(f) It cannot be denied that while prescribing qualifications for a particular post, the employer may pitch in various factors especially dealing with functionality of the post as also the creation of the job opportunities across the societal structure;
(g) It was with a conscious intent in the mind that the qualification prescribed in the Rules was not preceded with word “minimum”, leaving the qualification of diploma to be the only qualification determining eligibility unless a higher qualification were in the same line/channel; (h) For these reasons, the reference of the judgments in Jyoti K.K. and Puneet Sharma (supra) do not support the case of the petitioners.
summarized that there is no dispute about the competence of the Governor of Bihar to frame the Cadre Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The prescriptions of educational qualification for a pharmacist are in the Pharmacy Act of 1948 and the Regulations of 2015, which is limited only to education in the field of Pharmacy and it will not govern the State’s right to prescribe minimum/threshold qualification for
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 63/72
participating in the recruitment process. There is a rationale behind limiting the recruitment process and confining it to diploma holders only as they are best suited for health-care services as Pharmacists and they have no other avenue of appointment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 64/72
General that merely because there is a provision for lateral entry of diplomates in the second year of B. Pharma course, it will not make B. Pharma course or M. Pharma course in the same line/channel of education.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 65/72
has to be read in conjunction with any other constitutional infirmity in order to invalidate a Rule which has come through the route of Article 309. The jurists have always critiqued that substantive due process only puts the Courts in the position of arbiters of the wisdom of the legislature in enacting particular piece of legislation [refer to Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. : (2008) 6 SCC 1; K.T. Plantation (Pvt. Limited) & Anr.Vs. State of Karnataka : (2011) 9 SCC 1 ].
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 66/72
that it has to be tailor-made to suit certain individuals
[refer to V.K. Sood Vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation &
Ors. : 1993 SCC (LNS) 907/1993 Supp. (3) SCC 9 ].
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 67/72
over the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.
observed that judicial review is a counter majoritarian force in a legal system. Whenever a legislative Act is declared unconstitutional, the will of the representatives
of the people is thwarted. Invalidating a statute is a grave step and must therefore be taken in a very rare and exceptional circumstance. The power has to be exercised with great judicial restraint.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 68/72
possible view, not open to rational questions and there is no manner of doubt that the legislation in question is
flagrantly unconstitutional and there is no way of avoiding such decision.
statute constitutional and the other making it unconstitutional, the former view must always be preferred. Every effort should be made to uphold the constitutional validity of a statute. It should not be the concern of the Court whether the legislation is in its opinion wise or unwise or sound or unsound. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga : (1952) 1 SCC
528 has very aptly summed up that the legislature is the best Judge of what is good for the community, by whose suffrage it comes into existence [also refer to Md. Hanif
Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar : AIR 1958 SC 731; Mahanth Moti Das Vs. S.P. Shahi : AIR 1959 SC 942 ; B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. : (1999) 9 SCC 700 ;
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 69/72
State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Distillery Ltd. : (1997) 2 SCC 453 ; and Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) v. Union of India; AIR 1960 SC 554 ].
that course curriculum of Diploma in Pharmacy is
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 70/72
different from what it is for graduate degrees. The experience has shown that diplomates are better suited for health services.
learned Advocate General, the very fact that diplomates have no other avenue of appointments and that they have undergone the intensive training in hospital-care, are some of the indices on which the rules are is said to have been made. There is no exclusion of graduate degree holders provided they possess the basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 71/72
lateral entry in B. Pharma course in its second year.
degrees in Pharmacy are higher qualification but when the essential/minimum qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy has been fixed in the cadre rules, it cannot be tinkered with only on the ground of the same not being wise or sound or as suggested, arbitrary. The prescriptions of course study for Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act of
1948 and the Regulations of 2015, referred to above, are only with respect to the eligibility of such graduates, postgraduates and diplomates to practice Pharmacy, subject to their registration with the respective Pharmacy Councils of States but that does not pertain to the matters of recruitment, which are in the exclusive domain of the appropriate Governments.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025 72/72
minimum qualification of diploma is neither arbitrary or exclusionary per se.
terms of this judgment.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
Partha Sarthy, J: I agree.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Praveen-II/Krishna
| AFR/NAFR | AFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | 04.04.2025 |
| Uploading Date | 10.04.2025 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Rule 6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 prescribing Diploma in Pharmacy as a minimum qualification for Pharmacists is repugnant to Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 allowing Bachelo
Whether excluding holders of B. Pharma or M. Pharma degrees from recruitment without prior Diploma in Pharmacy constitutes arbitrary class legislation violative of Articles 14 and 16?
Whether higher qualifications in the same channel of learning subsume lower qualifications under the rules of natural justice and recruitment policy?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nair Service Society vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan & Ors.Referred¶274
Nair Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan & Ors. : (2009) 5 SCC 545 · Who else cites this
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶316
K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India : (2019) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Sodan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors.Referred¶41
Sodan Singh & Ors. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors : (1989) 4 SCC 155 · Who else cites this
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors.Referred¶340
Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors. : (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 600 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab vs. Davinder SinghReferred¶367
State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Singh : (2025) 1 SCC 1/2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860 · Who else cites this
Pharmacy Council of India vs. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors.Explained¶368
Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors. : (2021) 10 SCC 657
Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd. vs. Md. Asif HussainDistinguished¶394
L.P.A. No. 1416 of 2018 [Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Ltd. through its Chairman & Ors. Vs. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors.]
Jyoti K.K. vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.Distinguished¶395
Jyoti K.K. & Ors. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. : (2010) 15 SCC 596 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan & Anr.Distinguished¶395
State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Abdul Gaffar Khan & Anr. : (2006) 11 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
Appu Kumar vs. The State of BiharDistinguished¶405
Appu Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar
Puneet Sharma vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr.Distinguished¶413
Puneet Sharma & Ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. : (2021) 16 SCC 340 · Who else cites this
Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Imtiyaz AhmadDistinguished¶462
Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad : (2019) 2 SCC 404 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 4 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar Mishra
Abhishek Kumar
Puja
Pharmacy Council of India
Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 Petitioners
The State of Bihar
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
PARTHA SARTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
