SUPREME COURT: GOVERNMENT CAN REJECT OVER-QUALIFIED CANDIDATES FOR LOWER-LEVEL POSTS:

On January 16, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended), which prescribes a Diploma in Pharmacy as the minimum essential qualification for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist in the state. A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed appeals filed by holders of Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharma) and Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharma) degrees, who had challenged their exclusion from a recruitment drive for 2,473 Pharmacist posts solely because they lacked the required Diploma.

The appellants contended that the rule was repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015, which recognize both Diploma and Degree holders as qualified pharmacists eligible for registration and practice. They further argued that the provision was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it created an irrational micro-classification among equally registered professionals. Additionally, they asserted that a Bachelor's or Master's degree, being a higher qualification than a Diploma, should automatically prevail and entitle them to apply for the post.

The State of Bihar defended the rule, emphasizing that the Diploma course includes mandatory 500 hours of practical hospital-based training, which is specifically tailored for roles in public health settings such as government hospitals, dispensaries, and primary health centres. In contrast, degree courses adopt a broader, more industry-oriented curriculum with only 150 hours of hospital training, and degree holders have wider employment opportunities outside public service. The State argued that prescribing qualifications is a policy decision within its domain, aimed at selecting candidates best suited for public healthcare responsibilities, including medicine storage, dispensing, inventory management, patient counseling, and regulatory compliance.

The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, rejected the challenge and affirmed the Patna High Court's decision. The Court observed that determining the most suitable qualifications for public posts falls exclusively within the employer's domain, the State under Article 309 of the Constitution. This power allows the State to make independent assessments based on the needs of its institutions, subject only to limited judicial review for legislative competence, arbitrariness, or violation of fundamental rights. Courts cannot rewrite service rules, assess equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their own judgment for the employer's policy wisdom unless the prescription is shown to be perverse.

The bench clarified that a qualification in one stream does not automatically imply equivalence in another. The Diploma's focused structure, with its compulsory extensive hospital training, provides a rational basis for preferring such candidates for public hospital roles. Merely possessing higher educational qualifications does not make candidates eligible when the State's objective is to draw from a specific pool of applicants with the targeted practical training. Diploma holders also face more limited employment avenues compared to degree holders, supporting the State's decision to identify a narrower, more suitable group from the broader pool of registered pharmacists.

The Court emphasized that while the State cannot act arbitrarily in setting qualifications, its choice here was reasoned and aligned with public interest in effective healthcare delivery. Pharmacists play an integral role in the public health system, where the public trusts their professional judgment in handling medicines and patient care.

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, and the recruitment process was directed to proceed strictly for candidates possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy. The ruling reinforces that governments retain wide discretion in framing recruitment criteria tailored to specific job requirements, particularly in public service roles critical to societal welfare.