States Cannot Prescribe Qualifications Beyond Those Laid Down In Union Law: Supreme Court

When a field prescribing a qualification for a public post is occupied by the Union, then it is impermissible for the States to impose additional qualifications, observed the Supreme Court.

A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi heard the batch of appeals concerning the challenge to the power of the State Government to prescribe the essential qualifications for the position of Drug Inspector, different from the qualifications prescribed by the Union Government under Rule 49 of the Drug Rules, 1945 (“Rules”).

Invoking the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the States of Haryana and Karnataka have prescribed different qualifications from those already prescribed by the Union Government under the Rules framed under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Rejecting the States exercise of power, the Court said that “the State's power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India extends to regulation of recruitment and conditions of service, including prescription of qualifications, subject to the constitutional limitation that such rules must not be inconsistent with the Central statute and the Rules framed thereunder..”, adding that in the event of any conflict, the Drugs Rules framed under the Central Law would prevail over the State Rules.

The core legal dispute revolved around the interpretation of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Rules framed under it. Section 33 of the Act empowers the Central Government to prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors. Exercising this power, Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, sets the educational criteria (a degree in Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, or Medicine with specialisation).

The proviso to Rule 49 stipulates that only those Inspectors with specified experience in manufacturing or testing Schedule C drugs "shall be authorised to inspect the manufacture" of such substances.

The States of Haryana and Karnataka, however, through their service rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, made this experience a mandatory "essential qualification" for initial appointment itself, effectively excluding candidates without such prior experience, prompting them to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to term the State's power to prescribe as an additional qualification as invalid, a set of appeals was filed before the Supreme Court involving the State and other participants.

Affirming the impugned decisions, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari observed:

“...it is concluded that the powers so exercised either by the State of Haryana or Karnataka to prescribe such qualifications for appointment of Inspector, over and above the provisions of the Drug Rules, is completely alien, in particular when the subject was already occupied by the Central Government and the rules have been framed by it. Once it has been held that State Governments do not have the power to legislate on the issue in the manner as done, and the recourse as permissible has not been taken, the question of repugnancy is not required to be dealt with. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh or the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru have interpreted the provisions in right earnest and rightly allowed the writ petitions filed by the participants, assailing the addition of experience as an essential qualification to participate in the process of selection.”

Accordingly, these appeals are disposed of in terms of the following directions:-

(i) The Public Service Commission of the respective States are directed to complete process of selection by taking qualification as prescribed in Drug Rules as essential, ignoring the requirement of experience as prescribed in terms of State Rules. Thus, the qualifications specified in the respective advertisements, as an essential requirement/experience for appointment by way of additional qualification stand quashed as ultra vires to D&C Act.

(ii) The Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) and the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) are directed to re-draw the selection list of all those candidates who possess the qualification as directed hereinabove in direction (i) and prepare the final selection list, following the Rule 49 of the Drug Rules.

(iii) We make it clear that if the persons appointed in the State of Haryana fall within the merit of the said newly drawn selection list, which would consequently be prepared by HPSC and KPSC respectively, in compliance with the directions hereinabove, they be continued in service without any hindrance and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits similar to the other selected candidates who find place in the newly drawn selection list.

(iv) With respect to persons appointed in the State of Haryana, despite the selection itself being quashed; it is clarified that such appointees who do not fall within the merit of the said newly drawn selection list, the State Government shall be at discretion to continue them in employment, however only upon creation of supernumerary posts for them and not against the advertised vacancies. Simultaneously, their seniority and other benefits be decided by putting them in bottom of the select list or by taking the recourse as permissible under law.

(v) In consequence of dismissal of the Civil Appeal Nos. 1725- 1731 of 2023, 1732-1738 of 2023; and Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 16490-16491 of 2023, and further, appeal bearing Diary No. 1909 of 2024 filed by sole appellant being allowed in terms of the directions as issued hereinabove; the HPSC and KPSC are directed to prepare the final merit lists of selected candidates for the respective States within a period of eight weeks and the same be sent to the States. The respective State Government, after completing necessary formalities, shall take steps for appointment of the selected candidates within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

Headnote

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 – Rule 49 – Power of the State Government to prescribe essential qualifications for the post of Drug Inspector (DI) or Drug Control Officer (DCO) - Key Issues – i. Whether the State Government, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India (or State Acts), can prescribe "experience" as an essential qualification for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector when such qualification is absent in the Central Rules; ii. Applicability of the Doctrine of Occupied Field where the Central Government has already exercised its rule-making power under Section 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act (D&C Act) – Held that when a field prescribing a qualification for a public post is occupied by the Union, then it is impermissible for the States to impose additional qualifications, observed the Supreme Court - Main Findings & Ratio – i. Doctrine of Occupied Field - The D&C Act is a "central law" that occupies the field regarding the prescription of qualifications for Inspectors under Section 33(2)(b) and Section 33(2)(n) - The State Government's power to appoint persons "as it thinks fit" under Section 21 does not extend to altering the "prescribed qualifications" set by the Central Government; ii. Interpretation of Rule 49 - The substantive part of Rule 49 of the Drug Rules, 1945, mandates specific educational degrees as the only essential qualifications for appointment - The 18-month experience mentioned in the proviso to Rule 49 is not a condition for eligibility for appointment; rather, it is a condition precedent for authorizing an already appointed Inspector to inspect the manufacture of substances listed in Schedule C; iii.Constitutional Supremacy - Rules framed by the State under the proviso to Article 309 or State enactments (like the Karnataka State Civil Services Act) cannot override or be inconsistent with the Central Drug Rules in an occupied field. [Relied on A.B. Krishna v. State of Karnataka (1998) 3 SCC 495; Paras 38 – 63]

Directions issued by the Court – i. Selection Criteria - Public Service Commissions (HPSC and KPSC) must complete selections based strictly on educational qualifications in Rule 49, ignoring the "experience" requirement added by State Rules; ii. Redrawing Merit List - Lists must be redrawn within eight weeks; iii. Protection of Existing Appointees (Haryana) - Selected candidates who remain in the new merit list shall continue in service - Those who fall out of the merit list may be continued only at the State's discretion via supernumerary posts, placed at the bottom of the seniority list.

Cause Title: The State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors. with connected matters

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 58

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv. Ms. Shrisha Chandra, Adv. Ms. Paya, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha, Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Chandrakanta Sahoo, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. K. G. Chiranjeev, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Sandeep Jindal, AOR Dr. Linto K.B., AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roopak Bansal, Adv. Mr. Deepak Bansal, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar, AOR Mr. P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Vibhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Darpan K.M., Adv. Ms. Amrita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat, Adv. Mr. Durga Prasad, Adv. Ms. Esha Chandhok, Adv. Ms. Rashi Bansal, AOR Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Adv. Ms. Lagan Kaur Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Amit Verma, AOR Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG. Dr. Hemant Gupta, AAG. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv. Mr. Shrisha Chandra, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Mr. Akash Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. D. S. Chauhan, AOR Ms. Ruchi Singh, Adv. Mr. Shikher Badial, Adv. Mr. Govind Goel, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Chandrakanta Sahoo, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Shahnawaz Mamadapur, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rijuk Sarkar, Adv. Dr. Suvesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Hari Sahteshwar, Adv. Mr. Sunny Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Nityananad Mahato, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. Mohammad Akhil, Adv. Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Ritik Arora, Adv. Mr. Shivam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Ms. Rudrali Patil, Adv.