Legal Review and Analysis of Md Firoz Mansuri & Ors vs State of Bihar & Ors 2026 INSC 68

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India on January 16, 2026, addresses a significant dispute concerning the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of Pharmacist in the state of Bihar. The core legal issue revolves around the constitutional and statutory validity of state-made service rules that prescribe a Diploma in Pharmacy as an essential qualification, thereby excluding candidates holding higher Bachelor or Master of Pharmacy degrees who do not possess the specified diploma. The Court reaffirms the primacy of the employer’s (State’s) policy domain in prescribing eligibility conditions for public employment, provided such prescriptions are not arbitrary or in direct conflict with overriding central legislation.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Md. Firoz Mansuri & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 68

Court: Supreme Court of India

Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Coram: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Bench Type: Division Bench (Two Judges)

Decision: Appeal Dismissed; Impugned judgment of the Patna High Court upheld.

2. Legal Framework and Relevant Precedents

A. Primary Legislation & Rules:

1. The Pharmacy Act, 1948: A central legislation regulating the profession of pharmacy. Key sections include:
   Section 10: Empowers the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to prescribe minimum standards of education.
   Section 42: Prohibits the practice of pharmacy by any person other than a registered pharmacist.

2. The Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015: Framed by the PCI under Sections 10 and 18 of the Pharmacy Act. It prescribes qualifications for pharmacists, including Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharma) or Bachelor in Pharmacy (B.Pharma).

3. Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended in 2024): State service rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6(1) prescribes "10+2 (Science) with Diploma in Pharmacy" as the minimum educational qualification. A note in Appendix-I states B.Pharma/M.Pharma holders "may be eligible provided they possess qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy."

B. Key Judicial Precedents Relied Upon:

• Bihar Rajya Berojgar Bheshagya Sangh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016): (Patna HC) Upheld the State's power to fix qualifications for recruitment.

• J&K Service Selection Recruitment Board & Anr. v. Basit Aslam Wani & Ors. (2020): Held that B.Pharma and D.Pharma are distinct qualifications, and eligibility is the employer's domain.

• Jyoti K.K. & Ors. v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. (2010): Recognized that a higher qualification can make a candidate eligible only if it presupposes the acquisition of the lower prescribed qualification.

• State of Punjab & Ors. v. Anita & Ors. (2015): Clarified that a higher qualification in a different stream cannot substitute a prescribed specific qualification.

• Zahoor Ahmad Rather & Ors. v. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad & Ors. (2019): Emphasized that prescribing qualifications is a policy matter for the employer, and judicial review is limited.

• Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade & Ors. (2019): Held that courts cannot decide equivalence of qualifications.

3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The appellants, holders of B.Pharma and M.Pharma degrees registered with the Bihar Pharmacy Council, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 6(1) of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules. The Rule mandated a Diploma in Pharmacy as the essential qualification for the basic post of Pharmacist. The State had issued recruitment advertisements excluding candidates without this diploma, even if they held higher pharmacy degrees. The Patna High Court, vide its impugned order dated 10.04.2025, upheld the validity of the rules. The appellants contended that the state rule was repugnant to the central Pharmacy Act and 2015 Regulations, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

4. Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the prescription of Diploma in Pharmacy as an essential qualification under the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules, 2014 (as amended) is repugnant to the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the Pharmacy Practice Regulations, 2015?

2. Whether the State, as an employer, is entitled to prescribe a specific qualification (Diploma) for recruitment to a public post, excluding holders of higher qualifications in the same discipline?

3. Whether such a prescription is arbitrary, discriminatory, and fails the test of proportionality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

5. Ratio Decidendi (Court’s Reasoning)
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the state rules based on the following reasoning:

• No Repugnancy with Central Law: The Court delineated the distinct fields occupied by the central and state laws. The Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the 2015 Regulations govern the regulation of the profession, including minimum educational standards for registration and practice. The Bihar Cadre Rules, framed under Article 309, operate in the separate domain of public employment and recruitment policy. The central law creates a pool of eligible registered pharmacists; the state rules represent a policy choice to select from a sub-set of that pool (diploma holders) for its specific needs. There is no conflict unless the State appoints an unregistered person, which is not the case here.

• Employer’s Prerogative to Prescribe Qualifications: The Court firmly reiterated that determining the relevance and suitability of qualifications for a post is the exclusive domain of the employer (the State). The power of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited. Courts cannot rewrite service rules, adjudicate on the equivalence of qualifications, or substitute their wisdom for the employer’s policy decision. The State’s discretion is subject only to the grounds of legislative competence, arbitrariness, or violation of fundamental rights.

• Classification Held to be Rational and Non-Arbitrary: The Court accepted the State’s justification for the classification:
  Different Course Structures: The D.Pharma course mandates 500 hours of compulsory hospital-based practical training, crucial for hospital pharmacy duties. The B.Pharma curriculum includes only 150 hours of training and has an industrial focus.
  Limited Employment Avenues: Diploma holders have fewer job opportunities compared to degree holders, who are eligible for higher posts like Drug Inspectors or roles in the pharmaceutical industry. The State’s policy aimed at protecting the employment prospects of diploma holders was deemed a legitimate objective.
  No Absolute Exclusion: Degree holders were not per se excluded; they remained eligible if they also possessed the required diploma. The Court found an intelligible differentia (practical hospital training focus and limited opportunities for diploma holders) with a rational nexus to the object (effective public health service delivery).

6. Legal Principles Established/Reaffirmed
This judgment does not establish radically new law but powerfully consolidates existing jurisprudence on the following points:

1. The field of professional regulation (qualifications for practice) and the field of recruitment to public service (qualifications for appointment) are distinct and can be governed by different sets of rules.

2. The principle of employer’s autonomy in prescribing eligibility conditions for public posts is paramount. Judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of patent arbitrariness, discrimination, or lack of legislative competence.

3. The test for allowing higher qualifications in lieu of a prescribed lower one is strict: the higher qualification must presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification. Mere academic advancement in the same broad discipline is insufficient.

4. Equivalence of qualifications is a matter for academic and executive bodies, not for judicial determination.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis
The Court’s analysis proceeded in a structured manner:

• Step 1 – Repugnancy Analysis: It first examined the objects, scheme, and specific provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, to conclusively determine that its scope did not extend to dictating state recruitment policy.

• Step 2 – Scope of Judicial Review: It surveyed a consistent line of precedents to crystallize the limited scope of judicial review in matters of prescribed educational qualifications for public employment.

• Step 3 – Arbitrariness and Proportionality Test: It scrutinized the State’s justification not with the intensity of a merits review, but to check if the rationale was completely irrational or non-existent. It engaged with the factual differences in the curriculum and training between diploma and degree courses to find a plausible basis for the classification.

• Step 4 – Balancing Interests: It balanced the State’s interest in tailoring its recruitment to specific service needs (hospital pharmacists) and social policy (providing employment to diploma holders) against the right of degree holders to be considered for public employment, finding the State’s action proportionate.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

• Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, confirming the validity of the Bihar Pharmacist Cadre Rules requiring a Diploma in Pharmacy as an essential qualification. The Patna High Court’s judgment was upheld.

• Critical Analysis: The judgment is a strong affirmation of federal principles and administrative autonomy. It correctly distinguishes between the right to practice a profession (regulated centrally) and the right to public employment in that profession (governed by state policy). However, it raises critical questions:
  Policy Over Merit: The decision prioritizes the State’s socio-administrative policy (protecting diploma holders) over the principle of selecting the most academically qualified candidates. It implicitly accepts that a less qualified candidate must be preferred.
  Deference to Executive: The extreme deference shown to the "employer’s wisdom" may, in other contexts, shield arbitrary or opaque recruitment policies from judicial scrutiny.
  Impact on Higher Education: It creates a paradoxical situation where obtaining a higher education (B.Pharma/M.Pharma) without a lower diploma can disqualify a candidate from public service in that very field, potentially disincentivizing advanced study.
  Practical Reconciliation Missed: A dissenting view could have urged the State to harmonize its rules by creating separate entry channels or quotas for diploma and degree holders, rather than making the diploma a mandatory gateway for all.

In essence, the judgment underscores that the Constitution permits the State, as a prudent employer, to make nuanced policy choices in recruitment, even if those choices appear debatable from a pure meritocracy perspective, provided they are not manifestly unreasonable.

(MCQs)

1. Under which constitutional provision were the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules primarily framed?
a) Article 312
b) Article 309
c) Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule
d) Article 16(4)

2. The Supreme Court held that the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the State Cadre Rules operate in?
a) The same field, leading to repugnancy.
b) Overlapping fields, requiring harmonious construction.
c) Distinct fields – professional regulation and public employment, respectively.
d) Concurrent fields where state law prevails.

3. According to the judgment, in which of the following scenarios would a higher qualification make a candidate eligible for a post with a prescribed lower qualification?
a) When the higher qualification is in the same discipline.
b) When the higher qualification is recognized by a central regulatory body.
c) When the higher qualification presupposes the acquisition of the lower prescribed qualification.
d) When the recruitment advertisement is silent on the issue.

4. Which of the following was NOT cited by the Court as a rational basis for the State’s classification between diploma and degree holders?
a) Diploma courses include mandatory hospital training.
b) Degree holders have wider employment opportunities outside public health services.
c) Degree holders demand higher salaries, increasing state expenditure.
d) The two courses have different subject focuses and objectives