The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Bihar government’s decision to require a Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum qualification for appointment to government pharmacist posts. The ruling brings an end to a long-running dispute where candidates holding only B.Pharm or M.Pharm degrees had challenged their exclusion from recruitment.
A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that the State was well within its authority to prescribe eligibility conditions and that courts cannot interfere with policy choices unless they are arbitrary or unconstitutional.
Read also:- Gadag Murder Case: Supreme Court Reverses High Court, Orders Release of Accused
Background of the Case
The case arose from amendments made to the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014, especially after the 2024 amendment, which clarified that:
- A Diploma in Pharmacy is mandatory for appointment.
- Degree holders (B.Pharm / M.Pharm) are eligible only if they also possess a diploma.
Several pharmacy graduates challenged this rule before the Patna High Court, arguing that:
- The Pharmacy Act, 1948 allows both diploma and degree holders to work as pharmacists.
- Excluding degree holders violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- The rule unfairly barred qualified candidates from government employment.
The High Court rejected these arguments, prompting appeals before the Supreme Court.
What the Petitioners Argued
The appellants contended that:
- The Pharmacy Act and Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015 recognize both diploma and degree holders as pharmacists.
- A higher qualification (B.Pharm/M.Pharm) should not be disqualified.
- The rule amounts to unreasonable classification and violates equality.
- The State cannot override central legislation through service rules.
They also argued that degree holders undergo more advanced training and should not be denied public employment.
The Bihar government defended the rule, stating that:
- Recruitment policy falls under the State’s authority.
- Diploma holders undergo mandatory hospital training, making them more suitable for public health roles.
- Degree holders have wider employment opportunities in industry and research.
- The rule does not ban graduates-it only requires them to also hold a diploma.
The State emphasized that public health needs practical training, which diploma courses specifically provide.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Against Service Tax on Speaker Fees, Clears HT Media in Event Management Dispute
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court agreed with the State and made several key observations:
- Public employment rules and professional registration serve different purposes.
- The Pharmacy Act regulates who can practice pharmacy-not who must be hired by the government.
- Fixing eligibility conditions is a policy decision, not a judicial one.
- Courts cannot rewrite recruitment rules or treat higher qualifications as automatically equivalent.
“The employer has the discretion to determine qualifications based on administrative needs,” the Bench observed.
The Court also noted that:
- Diploma holders undergo 500 hours of mandatory hospital training, unlike degree holders.
- The State’s classification had a rational basis linked to public healthcare delivery.
- There was no violation of equality or constitutional rights.
Read also;- Supreme Court Clears Speaker's Move in Judge Removal Process, Upholds Inquiry Committee Formation
Final Decision of the Court
Dismissing all appeals, the Supreme Court held:
“The prescription of Diploma in Pharmacy as an essential qualification is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.”
The Court upheld:
- The validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules
- The 2024 amendment
- The recruitment process initiated under those rules
All connected petitions were dismissed, and no costs were imposed.
Case Title: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12236 of 2025
Decision Date: January 16, 2026
