Supreme Court Upholds Diploma in Pharmacy as Mandatory Qualification for Pharmacist Posts in Bihar

Court rules that state governments may prescribe diploma-level qualifications for public pharmacist posts despite higher degrees.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a Diploma in Pharmacy is the mandatory qualification for pharmacist recruitment in Bihar, affirming the state’s authority over public sector employment criteria.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a Diploma in Pharmacy is the mandatory qualification for pharmacist recruitment in Bihar, affirming the state’s authority over public sector employment criteria.AI Image/Freepik
Published on
Updated on
Summary

The Supreme Court has upheld Bihar’s rule requiring a Diploma in Pharmacy for pharmacist recruitment, affirming the state’s authority to set eligibility for government posts.

New Delhi, January 16, 2026 — The Supreme Court of India on January 16 upheld the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, reinforcing that a Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharm.) is the essential minimum educational qualification for recruitment to pharmacist positions in Bihar’s public health services. This decision dismisses legal challenges by candidates holding Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm.) and Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharm.) degrees without a D.Pharm. qualification.

The Bihar Pharmacist Recruitment Rules

The Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, first notified on October 10, 2014, prescribe conditions for direct recruitment to the post of Pharmacist (basic category) in the state health department. Rule 6(1) sets the minimum eligibility as successful completion of Class 12 (Science) plus a Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized institution, along with registration with the Bihar Pharmacy Council.

Earlier iterations included a note suggesting diploma holders and degree holders “may apply,” but this was amended in October 2024 to require that degree holders must also possess the D.Pharm to qualify.

This amendment sparked litigation when B.Pharm and M.Pharm holders without D.Pharm challenged their exclusion from recruitment despite having higher academic qualifications. They initially obtained interim relief in the Patna High Court, but the Division Bench later upheld the cadre rules in January 2023, and the subsequent amendment reaffirmed the requirement.

Legal Challenge and Issues

The petitioners argued that the cadre rules were inconsistent (repugnant) with central pharmacy regulations, particularly the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and subordinate regulations framed by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), which recognize both diploma and degree qualifications for registration and practice as pharmacists. They also contended that excluding higher qualified candidates solely for not holding the diploma violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (equality before law and equal opportunity in public employment).

The PCI is the statutory authority constituted under the Pharmacy Act of 1948 to prescribe minimum educational standards and regulations for the profession of pharmacy nationwide. Under the Act, the PCI formulates education regulations that define the standards for qualifications leading to registration as a pharmacist; diploma and degree holders can both be registered as pharmacists under central rules.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

  1. The Supreme Court clearly distinguished between eligibility to practice pharmacy and eligibility for appointment to a government pharmacist post.

  2. It reaffirmed that central legislation, such as the Pharmacy Act, governs who may be registered and practice as a pharmacist, while state recruitment rules determine eligibility for government employment, which lies within the employer’s policy authority.

  3. The Court held that prescribing essential qualifications for state posts is a matter of recruitment policy, not professional regulation, and therefore falls within the administrative discretion of the state.

  4. It noted that Diploma in Pharmacy and degree courses are structured with different training objectives, and the state is entitled to assess which qualification aligns with the requirements of its public service roles.

  5. The bench observed that setting D.Pharm as the minimum qualification represents a policy-based decision supported by rational considerations and does not amount to arbitrariness.

  6. The Court concluded that higher academic qualifications do not automatically substitute for an explicitly prescribed essential qualification, unless the recruitment rules specifically allow such substitution.

  7. It further held that the diploma requirement does not violate constitutional guarantees, including equality and equal opportunity in public employment.

Implications of the Judgment

The decision confirms the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules and allows ongoing recruitment to proceed under the established framework. B.Pharm and M.Pharm holders remain eligible only if they also meet the Diploma in Pharmacy requirement stipulated by the state.

References

  1. Pharmacy Act, 1948, Government of India, https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/6838/1/pharmacy_act_1948.pdf

  2. Pharmacy Council of India, Education Regulation and Scope, https://pci.gov.in/en/education-regulation/.

(Rh/SS/MSM)

The Supreme Court of India ruled that a Diploma in Pharmacy is the mandatory qualification for pharmacist recruitment in Bihar, affirming the state’s authority over public sector employment criteria.
Pharmacy Education in India: Courses, Regulation, and Career Pathways

Related Stories

No stories found.
logo
Medbound Times
www.medboundtimes.com