Govt Can Exclude Candidates With Higher Qualification From Post Requiring Lower Qualification: Supreme Court

Observing that the States are empowered to decide the minimum eligibility requirement for a public post, the Supreme Court on Friday (January 16) upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, which prescribes 'Diploma in pharmacy' as the minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of 'Pharmacists' in the State.

Affirming the Patna High Court's decision, a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the plea filed by the B.Pharma/M. Pharma degree holders, who challenged their exclusion from the recruitment drive for 2,473 posts of Pharmacists in the State, merely because of not holding the essential eligibility requirement, i.e., Diploma in Pharmacy.

The Appellants argued that Rule 6(1) was repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, which recognize both Diploma and Degree holders as qualified pharmacists. Moreover, they challenged the constitutional validity of the Rule, arguing it to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16, creating an irrational "micro-classification" among equally registered professionals.

Further, they contended that, as a Bachelor's/Master's degree is a higher qualification than that of the Diploma, it should prevail over the lower qualification like the Diploma.

Opposing the Appellant's arguments, the State supported the Rule, arguing that Diploma holders receive focused, practical hospital training (500 mandatory hours) crucial for public health roles, whereas degree holders have broader, industry-oriented curricula and more job avenues, do receive only 150 hours of practical hospital training.

Rejecting the Appellant's argument and finding force in the State's contention, the judgment authored by Justice SC Sharma reaffirmed that determining job qualifications is a policy matter within the exclusive domain of the employer (the State), subject to very limited judicial review.

“The power to frame rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India empowers the State to determine the most suitable qualifications for public posts based on its independent assessment.”, the court said.

“Therefore, it has been consistently recognised that it is for the employer to determine and decide the relevancy and suitability of qualifications. The power of judicial review in matters of recruitment is limited to examining legislative competence, arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights, if any. Courts cannot rewrite service rules, determine equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own assessment for that of the employer. The scope of judicial review in matters of public employment does not extend to questioning the State's wisdom or policy in prescribing the minimum eligibility requirements for a public post. Qualifications are prescribed keeping in view the needs and interests of an institution, an industry or an establishment, as the case may be. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The assessment of the expediency, advisability or utility of such prescription of qualifications do not warrant intervention of the Courts unless the same are shown to be perverse. However, at the same time, the employer cannot act arbitrarily in prescribing qualifications for posts.”, the court added.

The Court accepted the State's rationale that the Diploma course's structure, with its compulsory hospital-based practical training, provides a rational basis for preferring diploma holders for public hospital roles, also adding that merely because the Appellants have higher educational qualifications would not make them eligible for the particular post, when the State's focus was to acquire the best talent from the pool of candidates who have done a mandatory 500 hours of practical hospital training, not provisioned in the degrees obtained by the Appellants.

“A qualification in one stream does not presuppose a qualification in another. Furthermore, the diplomates have limited employment avenues as compared to degree holders. Thus, the decision of the State in making possession of a Diploma an essential qualification for appointment cannot be said to be arbitrary. The State has merely identified a narrower catchment of candidates it considers most suitable for a particular purpose, from within the larger pool registered pharmacists.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, directing that the recruitment drive proceed strictly for candidates possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy.

Cause Title: MD. FIROZ MANSURI & ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 57

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ardendhumauli Prasad, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rachitta Rai, AOR Mr. Samresh Chandra Jha, Adv. Ms. Aditi, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mahender Rathoure, Adv. Mr. Guru Sharan Maurya, Adv. Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Dilip Singh, Adv. Mr. R Karthik, Adv. Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vivek Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Maahi Singh, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Piyush Sardana, Adv. Mr. Manindra Dubey, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. Romy Chacko, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Sudip Patra, Adv. Mr. N Surej Prasad, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Navneeti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj P Deo, AOR Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Yatharth Singh, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Harsh Jain, AOR Mr. Navneeti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj P Deo, AOR Mr. Vipin Rana, Adv. Mr. Ayush Negi, AOR Ms. Ritu, Adv. Mr. Vinay Panwar, Adv. Mr. Vishu Verma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Ahuja, Adv.