Puja vs Union Of India on 10 April, 2025

0
19

Patna High Court

Puja vs Union Of India on 10 April, 2025

Author: Ashutosh Kumar

Bench: Partha Sarthy, Ashutosh Kumar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.313 of 2025
     ======================================================
     Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Son of Narsingh Mishra Resident of Bharpurwa, P.S.-
     Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.


                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar,
     Patna.
3.   The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
     Welfare, New Delhi.
4.   The Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No.- 02,
     Community Centre, Maa Anandamai Marg, Okhla Phase- 1, New Delhi.
5.   The Registrar, Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot
     No.- 02, Community Centre, Maa Anandamai Marg, Okhla Phase- 1, New
     Delhi.

                                                         ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
                                     with
                 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 72 of 2025
     ======================================================
1.   Abhishek Kumar son of Ramjanm Sharma, resident of Loharpatti Phulguni,
     P.S.-Thawe, District-Gopalganj.
2.   Vimal Kumar, son of Dayanand Prasad, resident of Birpur, Belao, P.S.-
     Barbigha, District-Shekhpura.



                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The Director in Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4.   The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
     Welfare, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
5.   The Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2,
     Community Centre, Maa Anandmani Marg, Okhla Phase-1, New Delhi-
     110020 through its Registrar Cum Secretary.
6.   The Bihar Technical Service Commission through its Secretary.
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           2/72




                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
       ======================================================
                                       with
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 193 of 2025
       ======================================================
  1.    Puja Daughter of Late Anil Kumar, resident of Jakkanpur, P.O- GPO, P.S-
        Gardanibagh, District - Patna, Bihar, Pin Code 800001.
  2.    Gaurav Kumar Son of Prem Shankar Pal resident of Vill - Kudra, P.O -
        Kudra, P.S - Kudra, District - Kaimur, Bihar, Pin Code-821108.
  3.    Mritunjoy Kumar Singh Son of Chandrama Singh resident of Vill-
        Mishripur, P.O- Sasaram, P.S- Sasaram, District- Rohtas, Bihar, Pin Code-
        821115.
  4.    Jawaid Eqbal Son of Md Eqbal resident of Vill- Maghota, P.O- Narayanpur,
        P.S Barahat, District - Banka, Bihar, Pin Code-813103.
  5.    Kaushal Kishor Kumar Son of Vijay Sharma resident of Vill - Surkhi, P.O -
        Obra, P.S - Obra, District - Aurangabad, Bihar, Pin Code-824124.
  6.    Nitin Pandey Son of Awadhesh Pandey resident of Vill - Parnawa, P.O-
        Gopalbad, P.S - Sarmers, District -Nalanda, Bihar, Pin Code-811104.
  7.    Vimal Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Vilash Yadav resident of Vill - Sihaul, P.O -
        Sihaul, P.S- Biraul, District- Darbhanga, Bihar, Pin Code 847202.
  8.    Md Izharul Haque Son of Minhajul Haque resident Sarai satteer khan, P.O.-
        Laheriasarai, P.S- Laheriasarai, District- Darbhanga, Bihar, Pin Code -
        846001.
  9.    Manish Kumar Son of Late Raman Kumar Bhagat resident of Simri
        bakthiyar pur, P.O Simri bakthiyar pur, P.S - Simri bakthiyar pur, District
        Saharsa, Bihar, Pin Code-852127.
  10. Kumar Prasun Son of Krishna Murari Singh resident of Panchgachia, P.O -
      Panchgachia, P.S - Bihra, District - Saharsa, Bihar, Pin Code - 852124.
  11. Rakesh Ranjan Son of Ram Chandra Mandal resident of Vill - Shripur
      bhikhamchak, P.O- Shripur majarahiya, P.S Hathauri, District Samastipur,
      Bihar, Pin Code-847105.
  12. Sumarjeet Choudhary Son of Devnarayan Choudhary resident of Vill Bela,
      P.O Barahsher, P.S - Bihra, District - Saharsa, Bihar, Pin Code 852124.
  13. Kumar Ashutosh Son of Sudhir Jha resident of Vill - Bhatraghat, P.O
      Bhatraghat, P.S - Bisfi, District - Madhubani, Bihar, Pin Code-847122.
  14. Suman Kumar Gupta Son of Late Shankar Prasad Gupta resident of
      Bikrampur, P.O- Kajra, P.S - Kajra, District - Lakhisarai, Bihar, Pin Code-
      811309.
  15. Rakesh Ranjan Son of Uma Shankar Singh resident of Ilahibagh, P.O
      Bairiya, P.S Gopalpur, District - Patna, Bihar, Pin Code - 800007.
  16. Rahul Kumar Jyoti Son of Uday Sharma resident of Vill - Neema, P.O-
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           3/72




        Nadwan, P.S- Dhanarua, District- Patna, Bihar, Pin Code 804453.
  17. Sarfaraz uddin Son of Md Shakil Ahmad resident of Haroon Colony Sec 1,
      P.O- Phulwari sharif, P.S- Phulwari sharif, District - Patna, Bihar, Pin Code-
      801505.
  18. Md Gufran Son of Md Mustaq resident of Vill - Paighamberpur, P.O-
      Darima, P.S- Keoti, District - Darbhanga, Bihar, Pin Code - 847121.



                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
  1.    Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
        Welfare, New Delhi
  2.    The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Health
        Department, Bihar, Patna
  3.    Director in Chief, Health Department, Bihar, Patna
  4.    Registrar cum Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi
  5.    Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
        Bihar, Patna
  6.    Chairman, Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
       ======================================================
                                       with
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 428 of 2025
       ======================================================
  1.    Md. Firoz Mansuri Son of Md Sirajuddin Resident of Village -Baijnathpur,
        P.O.-Batsar, P.S.-Dhoraiya, District-Banka, Bihar.
  2.    Rakesh Roushan Son of Rameshwar Prasad Resident of Village -Patel
        Nager, P.O.- Basudeopur, P.S. Kotwali, District-Munger, Bihar
  3.    Md.Shahnawaz Alam Son of Md. Shamim Ahmad Resident of Village
        -Chaknathu, P.O.- Chaknathu, P.S.Sanhoula, District-Bhagalpur, Bihar.
  4.    Vishwajit kumar gunjan Son of Krishna Deo Jha Resident of Village
        -Jagdishpur, P.O.- Adharpur, P.S.Karpurigram, District- Samastipur, Bihar,
        Pincode-848130.
  5.    Niranjan kumar Son of Premlal Resident of Village- Janki complex
        Kashipur, P.O. Samstipur, P.S.-Samstipur town, District-Samastipur, Bihar.
  6.    Desh Deepak Tiwari Son of Mukteshwar Tiwari Resident of Village-Asha
        Parari, P.O. - Asha Parari, P.S.Simri, District- Buxar, Bihar.
  7.    Agnivesh kumar singh Son of Virendra Pratap Singh Resident of Professor
        Colony Budhanpurwa, P.O. Buxur, P.S.-Model Thana, District- Buxur, Bihar.
  8.    Md. Manazir Ahsan Son of Md. Akbar Ali Resident of Village- Puraini, P.O.-
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           4/72




        Puraini, P.S. Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar.
  9.    Desh Ratna Son of Rajendra Prasad Resident of Village-Dhanhar, P.O.-
        Ekengarsarai, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District Nalanda, Bihar.
  10. Ramanand Sharma Son of Shyam Nandan Sharma Resident of Village -
      Sahbajpur Mahnaiya, P.O.- Kamraw, P.S.- Dalsinghsarai, District-
      Samstipur, Bihar.
  11. Kumar Rohan Son of Raghunath Singh Resident of Village Budha Colony
      Adalbari, P.O. Anjanpir, P.S.- Hajipur Town, District - Vishali, Bihar.
  12. Mujtaba Hasan Son of Mutuza Hasan Resident of Village Tharma police
      Station Gayaghat, P.O.- Therma Police Station Gayaghat, P.S.-Gaighat,
      District Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
  13. Nikhil Gaurav Son of Kamleshwari Prasad Yadav Resident of Village Mahe
      Kataiya, P.O.-Mahe Kataiya, P.S. Pipra, District-Supaul, Bihar.
  14. Zeeshan ali Son of Md. Mansoor Alam Resident of Village- Gewal bigha,
      koili pokhar, P.O.- Rampur, P.S.Rampur, District - Gaya, Bihar.
  15. Amit Ranjan Son of Harinandan Sah Resident of Village Madhopur
      Digharua, P.O.- Madhopur Digharua, P.S. Tajpur, District- Samstipur, Bihar.
  16. Waquar Ahmad Son of Abdul Hai Resident of Village Shikarpur, P.O.-
      Mahinagar, P.S. Baliabelon, District - Katihar, Bihar.
  17. Manish Kumar Son of Madan Prasad Resident of Kali bagh Joda Inar Ward
      no 03, P.O.- Bettiah, P.S.- Bettiah, District- West champaran, Bihar.
  18. Ravi Ranjan Son of Birendra Pandey Resident of House no 09 Road No 10,
      Indrapuri, P.O.- Keshrinagar, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna, Bihar.
  19. Harsh Sahay Son of Dilip Kumar Sinha Resident of Aghoria Bazar, Behind
      Girdhari Cold Storage, P.O.- Ramna, P.S.- Kazimohammadpur, District-
      Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
  20. Irshad alam Son of Md.Idrish Resident of village ramnagar, P.o.-Ramnagar
      Dhunsi, P.S. Manigachi, District- Darbhanga, Bihar, Pincode-847233.
  21. Pramod Kumar Son of Narendra Prasad Resident of Village -Bhagwanpur,
      P.O.- Ashadhi, P.S.-Mufassil, District-Nawada, Bihar.
  22. Khushbu Raja Son of Durga Prasad Singh Resident of Village -Udaypur,
      P.O. -Jagai, P.S.-Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda, Bihar.
  23. Shashi Bhusan Son of Lt Mahesh Prasad Singh Resident of Thakurwadi
      Road, P.O.- Jahanabad, P.S.-Jahanabad, District- Jahanabad, Bihar
  24. Ajeet kumar Son of Krishna Deo Thakur Resident of Village -Karpurinagar,
      P.O. -Fathepur, P.S.-Industrial Zero mile, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar.
  25. Mithlesh kumar Son of shiv ji rai Resident of Village -rasulpur kala, P.O.
      -rasulpur kala, P.S.-Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga, Bihar.
  26. Ajay kumar Son of Jai deo singh Resident of Village -Nagwan, P.O.-
      Nagwan, P.S. - Simri. Pincode-802133, Buxar.
  27. Pankaj Srivastava Son of Upendra Kumar Srivastava Resident of Viond
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           5/72




        Kunj, Flat no 304. P.O-Bhagwat nagar, P.S.- Bhagwat nagar, District - Patna,
        Bihar, Pincode-800026.
  28. Kamlesh kumar Prajapati Son of Amir Chand Prajapati Resident of Village-
      Sarangpur, P.O.- Barka Dumra, P.S. Ara Miffasil, District - Bhojpur,
      Pincode-802312.
  29. Preyes kumar singh Son of Baldeo Singh resident of Village Karari, P.O.-
      Dhobhan bazar, P.S.-Dhobhan, District- Bhojpur, Pincode-802156.
  30. Manish kumar Shudhanshu Son of Sri Awadhesh prasad Resident of Village-
      Mohsimpur, P.O.-Panhesha, P.S-Shkehopursarai, District-Sheikhpura, Pin
      code -811103.
  31. Kumud Ranjan Son of Indradeo Singh Resident of Village -Amduja, P.O.
      Amduja, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani, Pincode-847402, Bihar.
  32. Md.Rahmate Alam Son of Md.Azyzur Rahman Resident of Village -Sadar
      Tola, P.O. -Marghia, P.S.Marghia, District- Katihar, Pincode-854104, Bihar.
  33. Mukesh Kumar Singh Son of Late Nandkishore Singh Resident of Village
      -Mohanpur, P.O. - Dharhara, P.S.-Dharhara, District- Munger, Pincode
      811212, Bihar.
  34. Md.Rizwan Anwer Son of Md. Mahboob Alam Resident of Village
      -Bairagpur, P.O. Sontha, P.S.Kochadhaman, District-Kishanganj, Bihar.
  35. Dhananjay kumar Sudhanshu Son of Jai Prakash Yadav Resident of Village-
      Dhapodangi ,P.O. -Patharia, P.S.- Galgalia, District- Kishanganj, Bihar.
  36. Md. Ishtiyaque Hussain Son of Shafayat Hussain Resident of Village
      -Haldikhora, P.O. Haldikhora, P.S.- Kochadhaman, District- Kishanganj,
      Bihar.
  37. Abhishek Kumar Singh @ Abhishek Kumar Son of Lt. Raj Kishore Singh
      Resident of Village - Bhawal, P.O.- Bhawal, P.S. Ramnagar, District- West
      Champaran, Bihar.
  38. Chandan kumar Son of - Satyanarayan Prasad Resident of Village- Laukahi,
      P.O.- Laukahi, P.S. - Laukahi, District-Madhubani, Bihar.
  39. Ajay kumar Pandit @ Ajay Kumar Son of-Tripti Narayan Pandit Resident of
      Village- Baika ward no 05, P.O. Bishnupur, P.S. Phulparas District-
      Madhubani, Bihar.
  40. Sanyog kumar Son of Ganga Ram Paswan Resident of Village- Chouri, P.O.-
      Birsayar, P.S.-Sakari, District- Madhubani, Bihar.
  41. Md.Inamul Haque Son of Md. Idris Resident of Village - Gorgama, P.O.-
      Phulparas, P.S. - Phulparas, District- Madhubani, Bihar.
  42. Ajay kumar Son of Surendra Prasad Resident of Village- Kanjas, P.O.-
      Telhara, P.S.- Telhara, District- Nalanda, Pincode -801306.
  43. Abhineet Amar Son of Jay lal sahu Resident of Village -Pathrahi, P.O.
      -Pathrahi, P.S.- Ladaniya, District- Madhubani, Bihar.
  44. Subhash kumar singh @ Subhash Kumar Son of Kishore Singh Resident of
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           6/72




        Village- Mahna kuli,         P.O.-Chanpatia,   P.S.-Chanpatia,   District-West
        Champaran, Bihar.
  45. Sonu Kumar Verma @ Sonu Kumar Son of Lt. Adaya Ram Resident of
      Piuni Bag Baswariya ward no 22, P.O.-Bettiah, P.S. Bettiah, District- West
      Champaran, Bihar.
  46. Dhiraj kumar Son of Kapil deo prasad Resident of Village- Parwatia Tola,
      P.O.-Belbagh, P.S.-Mufassil thana betiah, District-West Champaran, Bihar
  47. Md. Zafar iquebal Son of Md. Ansar Resident of Village jale, P.O-Jale, P.S.
      Jale, District Darbhanga, Bihar.
  48. Shakil Anwer Son of Abdul Khalique Resident of Village Lakhaura Bichla
      Tola Ward no 7, P.O. Lakhaura P.S- Lakhaura, District-East Champaran,
      Bihar.
  49. Rajiv Raushan Son of Baikunth Prasad Gupta Resident of Village
      Sitarampur, P.O.- Sultanganj, P.S.Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur, Bihar,
      Pincode -813213.
  50. Ramesh kumar Son of Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village
      -Kyotapatti, P.O.- Abhuar, P.S. -Kishanpur, District-Supaul, Bihar.
  51. Ranjeet kumar raman Son of Sadanand Prasad Yadav Resident of Village
      Bairo tola Jhakrahi, P.O.-Kataiya, P.S. -Supaul distt., District-Supaul, Bihar.
  52. Rajnish kumar Choudhary @ Rajnish Kumar Son of Bhikhari Choudhary
      Resident of Village-Bhugruaa, P.O.-Jagauli, P.S.-Jagauli, District- Purnea,
      Pincode-854304.
  53. Kumar Pushkar Anand Son of Pankaj Kumar Singh Resident of Village-
      Bahadura, P.O.- Bhadura, P.S.- Rupauli, District -Purnea, Pincode-854204.
  54. Shankar kumar Son of Indradeo yadav Resident of 122, Sondiha, P.O.-
      Chutiya, P.S.- Shambhuganj, District- Banka, Bihar.
  55. Barun kumar Son of Chhatthu Prasad Resident of Village Sonvarsha, P.O.-
      Arajtur, P.S.- Chausa, District-Madhepura, Bihar. Pincode-853204.
  56. Aatif Reyazi Son of Zahid Hassan Resident of Village- Khutauna, P.O.-
      Khutauna, P.S.-Khutauna, District-Madhubani, Bihar, Pincode- 847227.
  57. Ashwani kumar azad Son of Devendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village
      Kathootiya, P.O.- Kathootiya, P.S.- Bihariganj, District- Madhepura, Bihar,
      Pincode-852101.
  58. Vikash Anand Son of Chandeshwari prasad Yadav Resident of Village
      Pariharpur, P.O.-Khajuri, P.S.Sorbazar, District-Saharsa, Pincode-852221
  59. Santosh Kumar Son of Ramanand Gupta Resident of Village- Belaon, Post-
      Kharenda, District- Kaimur, Bhabua
  60. Anaagat Son of Gulzar Ram Resident of - Bhagwanpur, post- Bhagwanpur,
      P.S sadar, District- Muzaffarpur
  61. Raman Kumar Son of Krishan Kant Jha Resident of- Refugee Colony,
      laxminath nagar, ward No. 06, District- Saharsha.
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           7/72




  62. Sumit Kumar Suman Son of - Janardhan Prasad Mehta Resident of
      Damagra, P.O.- Damgara, P.S. Damgari, District- Purnia.
  63. Ajay Kumar Ranjan Son of Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of- Ward No.
      12, Madhaili Bazar, Jirwa, P.S Shankarpur District- Madhepura.



                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
  1.    The State of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
        Patna
  2.    The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar,
        Patna
  3.    The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of health and Family
        Welfare, New Delhi.
  4.    The Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 02,
        Community Centre, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi.
  5.    The Registrar, Pharmacy Council Of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot
        No. 02, Community Centre, Okhla Phase 1, New Delhi.
  6.    The Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna Through its Secretary,
        Patna

                                                               ... ... Respondent/s
       ======================================================
                                          with
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4980 of 2025
       ======================================================
       Pharmay Council of India I-300, 3rd floor, Tower-I, World Trade Centre,
       Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi through its Registrar-cum-Secretary.


                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
  1.    The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
  2.    The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar,
        Patna.
  3.    The Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department,
        Government of Bihar, Patna.
  4.    The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna.
  5.    The Bihar Technical Service Commission through its Secretary-In-Charge,
        19 Harding, Road, Patna.

                                                                ... ... Respondent/s
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           8/72




       ======================================================
                                       with
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4987 of 2025
       ======================================================
  1.    Md Shahabuddin Ansari S/O-Late Md Zilani Ansari Village-Madhepur, P.S-
        Madhepur, Dist-Madhubani, Pincode-847408.
  2.    Niraj Kumar, S/O Vinod Kumar, Village- Kundal , P.O- Mahindwara , P.S-
        Mahindwara, Dist- Sitamarhi, State-Bihar, Pincode-843117.
  3.    Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari, S/O Shrikant Tiwari Village-Janerwa, P.O-Areraj,
        P.S-Govindganj, Dist-East Champaran, State- Bihar.
  4.    Md Shameem, S/O Md Khalilullah, Village-Karsahiya, P.O-Karsahiya, P.S-
        Dhaka, Dist-East Champaran, State-Bihar Pincode-845418.
  5.    Md Farooque Ashraf, S/O Md Amir Ashraf, Village-Ejorbara, P.O-Ejorbara,
        P.S-Phenhara, Dist-East Champaran, State-Bihar Pincode-845430.
  6.    Amresh Kumar, S/O Rajkumar Sah, Village-Parsauni Kapur, P.S-Patahi Dist-
        East Champaran State- Bihar Pincode-845457.
  7.    Md Ataur Rahman, S/O Anwar Alam Ansari, Village-Mirpur , P.S-Chiraiya,
        Dist-East Champaran, State- Bihar Pin Code-845415.
  8.    Mohan Kumar, S/O Shiv Chandra Prasad Village-Ghorasahan, Post-
        Ghorasahan, P.S-Ghorasahan, Dist-East Champaran, State- Bihar, Pincode-
        845303.
  9.    Md Shamim Akhtar, S/O Abul Quaish Village-Jhitkahiya Post-Jhitkahiya
        P.S-Lakhaura, Dist-East Champaran, State-Bihar, Pincode- 845431.
  10. Markanday Kumar Singh, S/O Phanindra Nath Singh Resident Of Ward
      No.24, New Chandmari, P.S-Motihari Sadar, Dist-East Champaran, State-
      Bihar Pincode-845401.
  11. Anju Kumari, D/O Ajay Prasad, Village-Raghunathpur, Post-Mirpur, P.S-
      Chiraiya Dist-East Champaran, State-Bihar, Pincode-845415.
  12. Tarique Anwar, S/O Manzurul Haque Village-Purushottam Pur, P.S-
      Chauradano, Dist- East Champaran, State- Bihar, Pincode-845302.
  13. Md Quamar Iqubal S/O Md Mahfuzur Rahman, Village-Ganeshpur, Post-
      Ganeshpur, P.S- Marauna, Dist- Supaul, State- Bihar, Pin Code-852133.
  14. Shakil Anwer, S/O Abdul Khalique, Village-Lakhaura Bichla Tola Post-
      Lakhaura Bichla Tola P.S- Lakhaura, Dist- East Champaran, State-Bihar,
      Pincode-845302.
  15. Md Neyaz Ahmad, S/O Seraj Ahmad, Village-Bheriherwa, P.S- Ramgarhwa,
      Dist- East Champaran, State-Bihar, Pincode-845433.
  16. Tanveer Khan, S/O Sadruddin Khan, Village-Majhariya, P.S-Adapur, Dist-
      East Champaran, State-Bihar, Pincode-845433.
  17. Amit Kumar Singh, S/O Harendra Prasad Singh, Village-Madhuban Tola
      Mohanwa, Post-Gulwara Madhuban, P.S- Madhuban, Dist-East Champaran,
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                           9/72




        State-Bihar, Pincode-845420.
  18. Md Asif Anwer, S/O Late Md Saim Khan Urdu Bazar, Jabbarchak Lane,
      Tatarpur, Dist-Bhagalpur, State-Bihar, Pincode-812002.
  19. Tauqueer Naim, S/O Late Naim Uddin, Village-Baturbari, Post-Baturbari,
      P.S-Tarabari, Dist-Araria, State- Bihar, Pincode-854311.
  20. Manmohan Kumar, S/O Shayam Bihari Tiwari, Village-Chhapra Bahas,
      Post-Chhapra Bahas, P.S- Sugauli, Dist-East Champaran, State-Bihar,
      Pincode-845435.
  21. Faiyazuddin Ahmad, S/O Salahuddin Ahmad, Village-Jangalia, Post-
      Gopalganj, P.S-Gopalganj, Dist-Gopalganj, State-Bihar, Pincode-841428.
  22. Vijay Shankar Prasad, S/O Late Shiv Prasad, Village-Gangaur, Post-
      Gangaur, P.S- Harlakhi, Dist-Madhubani, State-Bihar, Pincode-847308.
  23. Rakesh Kumar Yadav, S/O Yogi Yadav, Village-Usrahi, Post-Usrahi, P.S-
      Deodha, Dist-Madhubani, State-Bihar, Pincode-847226.
  24. Md Mahfooz Alam, S/O Md Sami Uddin Badluchak, Jagdishpur, Dist-
      Bhagalpur, State-Bihar, Pincode-813105.
  25. Vijaya Laxmi, W/O Tapomay Kumar Deo , 88, Anand Bag, Karpi, P.S-
      Karpi, Dist-Arwal, State-Bihar, Pincode-804419.
  26. Tapomay Kumar Deo, S/O-Indu Bhushan Kumar, Vill- Anand Bag, P.O-
      Karpi, P.S-Karpi, Dist- Arwal, State-Bihar, Pincode-804419.
  27. Kamlesh Kumar, S/O Bhogendra Gohiwar, Vill-Usrahi, P.S-Deodha, Dist-
      Madhubani, State-Bihar, Pincode-847226.
  28. Ravi Prakash, S/O Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Village- Laxmipur, Madhepur,
      Dist-Madhubani, State-Bihar, Pincode-847408.
  29. Md Adil Hussain Tahir, S/O Late Mojibur Rahman, Vill-Datta Gwal Toli,
      P.S.-BARSOI, Dist-Katihar, State-Bihar, Pincode-855102.
  30. Abhishek Kumar, S/O Brijesh Kumar Singh, At-Club Road Arah, P.S-
      Nawada Dist-Bhojpur, State-Bihar, Pincode-802301.
  31. Manoj Kumar Singh, S/O Kameshwar Singh, Village-, Deo, P.S-Deo, Dist-
      Bhojpur, State-Bihar, Pincode-802209.
  32. Yogesh Kumar, S/O Ram Binay Yadav, Village-Nehalpur, P.S-Mabbi Op,
      Dist-Darbhanga State-Bihar, Pincode-846005.
  33. Md Iqbal, S/O Md Gafur Sah, Village-Milky Anaith, P.S-Nawada, Dist-
      Bhojpur, State-Bihar, Pincode-802302.
  34. Maneesh Kumar, S/O Suresh Prasad Sharma, At-Shivji Colony Ward No-8,
      P.S-K Hat, Dist-Purnia, State-Bihar, Pincode-844301
  35. Nitin Sagar, S/O Ram Sagar Prasad, Village-Majhulia, P.S-Sakra, Dist-
      Muzaffarpur, State-Bihar, Pincode-843104.
  36. Md Hamid, S/O Md Khursheed Alam, Village-Ghordour, P.S-Salkhua, Dist-
      Saharsa, State-Bihar, Pincode-852127.
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          10/72




                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                              Versus
  1.    The State of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
        Patna.
  2.    The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar,
        Patna.
  3.    The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family
        Welfare, New Delhi.
  4.    The Pharmacy Council of India, NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 02,
        Community Centre, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi.
  5.    The Registrar, Pharmacy Council Of India, NBCC Centre, 3Rd Floor, Plot
        No. 02, Community Centre, Okhla Phase I, New Delhi.
  6.    The Bihar Technical Service Commission, Patna Through its Secretary,
        Patna.

                                                 ... ... Respondent/s
       ======================================================
       Appearance :
       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 313 of 2025)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
       For the State             :       Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
                                         Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Amish Kumar AC to AG
                                         Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
                                         Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7
       For the UOI                :      Ms. Shweta Verma, Advocate
                                         Mr. Sameer Sawan, Advocate
       For the Respondent         :      Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
                                         Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate
                                         Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                                         Mr. Utsav, Advocate
       For the BTSC              :       Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
       For the P.C.I.            :       Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate

       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 72 of 2025)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate
                                         Mr. Rishi Raj Raman, Advocate
                                         Mrs. Ruchi Mandal, Advocate
                                         Mr. Aniket Rai, Advocate
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          11/72




                                        Mr. Kunal Kumar, Advocate
       For the U.O.I.           :       Mr. Arjun Kumar, CGC
       For the State            :       Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
                                        Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
                                        Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7
       For the P.C.I.           :       Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate
       For the BTSC             :       Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
       For the Respondent       :       Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
                                        Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate
                                        Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Prafulla Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
                                        Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
                                        Mr. Utsav, Advocate

       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 193 of 2025)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Pushkar Bharadwaj, Advocate
                                         Mr. Raushan, Advocate
                                         Mr. Shubham Priyadarshi, Advocate
                                         Ms. Shreyashi Raj, Advocate
       For the UOI               :       Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Advocate
       For the BTSC              :       Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
       For the State             :       Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
                                         Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
                                         Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7
       For the P.C.I.            :       Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate
       For the Respondent        :       Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
                                         Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate
                                         Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                                         Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
                                         Mr. Utsav, Advocate

       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 428 of 2025)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advocate
       For the BTSC              :       Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          12/72




       For the State            :       Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
                                        Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
                                        Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7
       For the P.C.I.           :       Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate
       For the Respondent       :       Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                        Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate
                                        Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
                                        Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Prafulla Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate
                                        Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
                                        Mr. Utsav, Advocate

       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4980 of 2025)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate
       For the State             :       Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
                                         Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
                                         Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7
       For the BTSC              :       Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
       For the Respondent         :      Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
                                         Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate
                                         Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                                         Mr. Utsav, Advocate

       (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4987 of 2025)
       For the Petitioner/s      :       Mr. Md. Mumtaz Uddin, Advocate
       For the P.C.I.            :       Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate
       For the State             :       Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
                                         Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
                                         Ms. Supragya, AC to GP-7
       For the BTSC              :       Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate
       For the UOI                :      Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, Dy. SGI
                                         Dr. Iti Suman, CGC
       For the Respondent          :     Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
                                         Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          13/72




                                        Mr. P.K. Jha, Advocate
                                        Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
                                        Mr. Prafulla Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                                        Mr. Utsav, Advocate
       ======================================================
       CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                and
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
       C.A.V. JUDGMENT
       (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

       Date : 10-04-2025

                      All the writ petitions have been heard together

         and are being disposed off by this common judgment.

                      2. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 313 of 2025; 72 of 2025;

         193 of 2025; 428 of 2025; 4980 of 2025; and 4987 of

         2025, the petitioners have challenged the validity of Rule

         6(1) of Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014 (as

         amended) (hereinafter referred to as "impugned Rules of

         2014"), in which, it has been stipulated that for

         appointment by direct recruitment to the basic category

         posts of Pharmacists, minimum educational qualification

         shall be Intermediate/10+2 (Science) and passing in all

         parts (Part-I, II & III) of Diploma in Pharmacy from the

         Institutions recognized by the Government and a

         certificate to that effect would be necessary, as being
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          14/72




         violative of and repugnant to the Pharmacy Practice

         Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations

         of 2015") framed by the Pharmacy Council of India

         (hereinafter referred to as "PCI") under Section 10 of the

         Pharmacy Act, 1948, which, inter alia, provides that the

         basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy and Bachelor

         Degree in Pharmacy would be necessary for the

         profession of Pharmacists.

                      3. Rule 6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014

         have also been questioned on it being arbitrary and

         irrational.

                      4. The prayer in these petitions are also for

         declaration of the note provided in Rule 4 of the Bihar

         Pharmacist         Cadre       (Amendment)   Rules,   2024   in

         Appendix-I stipulating that B. Pharma and M. Pharma

         certificate holders would also be eligible for applying for

         the posts of Pharmacists, provided they possess the

         qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.

                      5. In the alternative, a prayer has been made for
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          15/72




         reading down Rule 6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014,

         as amended, to mean and include that candidates holding

         degree qualification (B. Pharma and M. Pharma) would be

         eligible for the post of Pharmacists.

                      6. In C.W.J.C. No. 4980 of 2025, preferred on

         behalf of the PCI, the prayer is exactly the same, but

         along with the prayer for quashing of the Advertisement

         No. 22 of 2025, dated 10.03.2025, issued by the Bihar

         Technical Service Commission, inviting applications for

         the post of Pharmacists under the Health Department,

         Government of Bihar, whereby only such candidates who

         have Diploma in Pharmacy could apply and that the

         holders of B. Pharma and M. Pharma degrees would be

         eligible only if they have the basic qualification of Diploma

         in Pharmacy.

                      7. This prayer has been made on the ground that

         the PCI, which is the apex regulatory body for the

         Pharmacy profession in India, has the exclusive authority

         to regulate the qualification, qualification standards,
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          16/72




         professional conduct and all other matters related to

         Pharmacy practice including the matters related to

         Pharmacists Cadre and that no State or local body could

         enact rules contrary to the provisions of the Pharmacy

         Act, 1948 and the regulations framed thereunder,

         especially the Regulations of 2015.

                      8. The central issue in all these petitions are: (a)

         whether a rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution

         of India by the Governor, viz., the impugned Rules of

         2014 could prescribe the basic/essential qualification for

         Pharmacists to be only Diploma in Pharmacy, even when

         under the Pharmacy Act of 1948 and the regulations

         framed thereunder, namely, the Pharmacy Practice

         Regulations of 2015, the basic qualification for the

         profession of Pharmacy is Diploma/Bachelor Degree in

         Pharmacy; (b) whether the rules in question entrench

         upon the occupied field of the Central Government; (c)

         whether B. Pharma/M. Pharma is a higher qualification

         than D. Pharma and; (d) whether B. Pharma/M. Pharma
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          17/72




         is in the same channel of learning, subsuming in itself the

         minimum/inferior qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy.

                      9. The issues are not, by any chance, novel and

         have drawn judicial attention in a number of cases in

         different contexts.

                      10. Before coming to these core issues, it would

         be necessary to delve in some background facts.

                      11. All the writ petitioners are holders of

         Bachelor of Pharmacy Degree and are also registered with

         the Bihar State Pharmacy Registration Council.

                      12. The Government of Bihar notified the Bihar

         Pharmacist Cadre Rules of 2014 on 10.10.2014. Rule

         6(1) of the impugned Rules of 2014 provided that the

         minimum qualification for the post of Pharmacists would

         be Intermediate/10+2 (Science) pass.            However in

         Appendix-I to the Rules, a "note" was provided that B.

         Pharma and M. Pharma Degree holders may also apply.

                      13. Shortly, thereafter, the Pharmacy Council of

         India (PCI) also framed Pharmacy Practice Regulations,
 Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
                                          18/72




         2015, which was gazetted on 15.01.2015. These

         Regulations were framed under Sections 10 and 18 of the

         Pharmacy Act of 1948.                         In Appendix-III of the

         Regulations of 2015, referred to above, the details of

         position, title and job responsibilities of Pharmacists have

         been provided. The basic qualification, according to the

         Regulation of 2015, is Diploma in Pharmacy/Bachelor in

         Pharmacy.

                      14. After the gazetting of the Regulation of

         2015,       the    Government            of    Bihar   amended   Bihar

         Pharmacist Cadre Rules by Bihar Pharmacist Cadre

         (Amendment) Rules, 2017, which was notified on

         03.11.2017

. In these amended Rules, the chain of

promotional posts were provided, bringing it in terms with

the Regulations of 2015.

15. No amendment, however, was made with

respect to the minimum/threshold/essential qualification

of Diploma in Pharmacy. Similarly, as in unamended

impugned Rules of 2014, the “note” provided in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
19/72

Appendix remained the same, namely, that holders of B.

Pharma and M. Pharma Degrees could also apply.

16. The impugned Rules of 2014, again,

underwent a change in the year 2019, whereby Rule 7

was amended for providing selection process for

Pharmacists, in which, the merit list was to be prepared

on the basis of the marks awarded.

17. Some of the writ petitioners had challenged

the validity of the Rules before this Court when a

notification dated 05.04.2023 was issued for selection

and appointment of persons as Pharmacists in the service

of the State.

18. This Court vide order dated 17.05.2023

passed in the writ petitions, referred to above, the lead

case being C.W.J.C. No. 7437 of 2023, noticed that

earlier notification brought out with the same

minimum/basic qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy,

inviting applications for contractual appointment, had led

to filing of several writ petitions before a learned Single
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
20/72

Judge, seeking permission of graduates and post-

graduates in Pharmacy to also apply, which prayer was

allowed by the learned Single Judge. However, a Division

Bench of this Court, in a batch of appeals, the lead case

being L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020, vide judgment dated

10.01.2023 had set aside the decision of the learned

Single Judge and had held that mere acquisition of higher

qualification directly and without basic qualification of

Diploma in Pharmacy would not entitle the graduates and

post-graduates in Pharmacy to become eligible for

participating in the process of selection and appointment

to the post of Pharmacists. The reasons given by the

Division Bench was that the standard of education and

the syllabus for acquiring Diploma in Pharmacy and B.

Pharma/M. Pharma are entirely different. The diploma

holders generally work in various Health Departments,

whereas graduates and post-graduates in Pharmacy are

ordinarily engaged in industrial side where drugs and

cosmetics are manufactured. They also have an avenue
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
21/72

of employment as Inspectors or higher promotional posts

in that line in the Drugs Wing of the Health Department.

19. While saying so, the Division Bench also

relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nair

Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beermasthan & Ors. :

(2009) 5 SCC 545. In the afore-noted case, it was held

that it is not for the Courts to decide on the wisdom or

otherwise of the legislature. The Courts should exercise

judicial restraint and not interfere with the same, unless

there is clear illegality.

20. Against the afore-noted judgment of the

Division Bench, referred to above, a Special Leave to

Appeal had been filed, which, at that time, was pending

consideration before the Supreme Court. Subsequently,

as referred to above, the State Government had brought

out a fresh notification dated 05.04.2023 on the very

same qualifications as was stipulated in notification of

2019. The Supreme Court was of the view that the High

Court would be required to consider the correctness or
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
22/72

otherwise of the eligibility criteria imposed in the

notification dated 05.04.2023 based on the impugned

Rules of 2014.

21. It was contended before the Supreme Court

that even in the absence of a candidate having diploma, a

candidate possessing B. Pharma or M. Pharma degrees

ought to be entitled to apply.

22. Expressing no opinion on such contention,

the matter was referred to the High Court.

23. As an interim measure, this Court vide order

dated 17.05.2023 had permitted the persons holding a

higher degree of B. Pharma/M. Pharma also to apply

against such notification/advertisement dated

05.04.2023.

24. While hearing the slew of writ petitions, this

Court on 05.10.2023 noticed the various provisions of

the Pharmacy Act, 1948, Pharmacy Practice Regulations,

2015 and B. Pharma Course Regulation, 2014. It was

also brought to the notice of this Court that a diplomate
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
23/72

gets lateral entry to the second year of the graduate

course in B. Pharma, suggesting that B. Pharma was

higher qualification in the same subject, enabling the

holder thereof to gain employment as a Pharmacist with

the Government. Initially, the Court was of the view that

what is specified in the Cadre Rules is the minimum

required qualification and, therefore, there would be no

justification for not allowing persons with higher degrees

in the same line of learning, from applying for the posts of

Pharmacists.

25. Since there was a discordant line of

reasoning from the judgment of the Division Bench in

L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020, the issue was referred to a larger

Bench for consideration.

26. Before the larger Bench of 3-Judges, of

which one of us (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) was a part, it was

submitted that the recruitment notification would be

withdrawn as the Cadre Rules were, perhaps, to be

amended. The larger Bench, thus, found that the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
24/72

petitions had been rendered infructuous and, therefore,

all the writ petitions were closed. However, it was

clarified by order dated 06.11.2023 that if the Cadre

Rules were not amended and the recruitment is initiated

on the same very lines, the writ petitioners would be

entitled to seek restoration of the writ petitions, but only

in the circumstance of no amendment being made to the

rules as it existed, dis-entitling the graduates to apply for

the said post.

27. Though the rules were amended, leaving the

provision contained in 6(1) of the original un-amended

Rules of 2014 unaffected, but the “note” in the Appendix

of Rule 4 was modified to the extent that B. Pharma/M.

Pharma degree holders also would be eligible to apply for

recruitment, if they also possess the qualification of

Diploma in Pharmacy.

28. Some of the writ petitioners, therefore,

contended that the situation remained the same and,

therefore, the larger Bench which had already been
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
25/72

constituted for the purpose for testing the validity of such

qualification be revived; the writ petitions be restored and

the issue be heard by the larger Bench. The rationale was

that only when the Division Bench later did not find itself

in agreement with the line of reasoning of the earlier

Division Bench judgment, the matter per force was

required to be referred to the larger Bench.

29. The learned Advocate General and the

intervenor/respondents, viz., the diploma holders

opposing the writ petitioners, however, have submitted

that with the amendment in the Rules, even though the

qualification provision remained unamended, fresh writ

petitions are required to be filed and heard by a Division

Bench only. It was but expressed by them that they had

no objection to a larger Bench also being constituted.

30. However, because of the clear intendment in

the order dated 06.11.2023 that the writ petitions would

be revived only in the event of there being no amendment

in the Rules as it existed, there would be no necessity for
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
26/72

a referral to the larger Bench again and the matter is

required to be heard afresh.

31. The graduate degree holders/writ petitioners

have argued that when the Cadre Rules itself provides

that B. Pharma and M. Pharma degree holders could

apply for the post of Pharmacists, the intention of the rule

making body is rendered apparent that it considers the

graduates in Pharmacy to be holders of higher

qualification, who would be entitled to be appointed to

post of Pharmacists as it would be in accordance with the

Regulations of 2015, which provides for the qualification

of Diploma in Pharmacy and Bachelor in Pharmacy as the

necessary qualification for the Pharmacists.

32. The writ petitioners have brought to the

notice of the Court a gazette notification dated

16.07.2019, whereby the Government of India, on the

recommendation of the PCI, had taken a decision that a

person holding the qualification of Doctors in Pharmacy

(Pharma D.) would be eligible for appointment to various
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
27/72

posts on which the holders of B. Pharma and M. Pharma

would be eligible to be appointed. Obviously, such a

decision was taken on a consideration of the fact that

Pharma D. is a higher qualification than B. Pharma and M.

Pharma. It was also argued that the Government of

Bihar, in several of its Departments, has permitted the

graduates in Pharmacy also to apply for the post of

Pharmacists.

33. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

Government of India vide its letter dated 07.10.2022 has

issued a clarification regarding the implementation of

Pharmacy Council of India Regulations, 2015 by the State

Governments. It would be profitable to extract the afore-

noted clarification dated 07.10.2022, which reads as

hereunder:

Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
28/72

34. The other line of arguments suggested by

the writ petitioners are that when the Rules provide for

minimum educational qualification of diploma, it cannot

be construed inter-changeably as essential educational

qualification. The expression “minimum” has to be

construed contextually, meaning thereby that it ought to

be understood as a cut-off filter which normally, sans the

change in the note in Appendix-I, ought not to debar
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
29/72

recruitment of higher qualified candidates.

35. Mr. Y.V. Giri, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Mr.

Mrigank Mauli and Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, the learned

Senior Advocates and Mr. Prashant Sinha, the learned

Advocate appearing for the petitioners have further

questioned the validity of Rule 6(1) of the impugned

Rules of 2014 on the grounds of proportionality, which

doctrine has been used to test the validity of a statute.

Under the principle of proportionality, any action of the

State which allegedly violates the constitutionally

protected right is required to be tested on three

parameters namely: (a) the action must be sanctioned by

law; (b) the proposed action is necessary in a democratic

society for a legitimate aim and; (c) the extent to which

such interference is permissible must be such as to be

proportionate to the need for such interference.

36. It was argued that the Supreme Court in the

case of K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India : (2019) 1

SCC 1 has formulated a four sub-component of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
30/72

proportionality need to be satisfied for a law to be valid

and the conditions formulated are cumulative. To list

them: (1) a measure restricting a right must have a

legitimate goal; (2) it must be a suitable means of

furthering this goal; (3) there must not be any less

restrictive but equally effective alternative and; (4) the

measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the

right holder.

37. What is to be seen, it has been argued, is

whether there exists a legitimate State interest and a

rational nexus between the measure adopted and the

object that it professes to fulfill. When the Supreme

Court referred to legitimate State interest, what it meant

was that the measure adopted to impair the

constitutionality must be towards preserving a larger

public interest and not any private interest of the parties

involved. It is in this test that distinguishes the test of

rational nexus which is employed under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India to test the intelligible differentia
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
31/72

category.

38. The Courts, in exercise of its power of

judicial review, is required to see if the measure adopted

to impair the constitutionally protected right, is actually

necessary to achieve the legitimate State interest. The

Courts are expected to see if there exists a range of

alternative measures, which are less intrusive and that

the alternative measures achieve the legitimate State

interest in real and substantial manner.

39. The Courts, then, must look at the issue in

that perspective, namely, that the measures adopted and

the alternative measures available would not lead to any

disproportionate impact on the rights of the individuals

whose rights have been impaired or upon the legitimate

State interest.

40. It was, thus, argued that it serves no

legitimate State interest in excluding persons with higher

qualification in the same line/channel of education, from

the recruitment process without any basis. The only
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
32/72

rationale provided by the State and that also through

inferential logic is that diploma holders are best suited for

recruitment as Pharmacists in hospitals, whereas higher

degree in Pharmacy would be more useful in the industrial

side, namely, the manufacture of drugs etc. and that the

avenues for appointment of diploma holders is limited

and, therefore, their right should be protected. No

empirical study has gone into this rationale as to the

effectiveness of employing only diploma holders in Health

Services as Pharmacists and that they have no other

avenues of appointment. The disproportionate harm to

the higher qualified aspirants has completely been

ignored, thus making the rule arbitrary. It has directly

and adversely affected the right to employment under

Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the law of

equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

41. It was argued that in Sodan Singh & Ors.

Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors : (1989) 4
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
33/72

SCC 155, it was held that the guarantee under Article

19(1)(g) would extend to practicing any profession, or to

carry on any occupation, trade or business. Profession

means an occupation carried on by a person by virtue of

his personal and specialized qualifications, training or

skill. The word “occupation” has a wide meaning, such as

regular work, profession, job, principal activity,

employment, business or a calling in which an individual is

engaged.

42. In this context, it was submitted that the

Pharmacy Act of 1948 and the regulations framed

thereunder, i.e., Regulations of 2015, clearly provide the

contours of the course of Diploma in Pharmacy and B.

Pharma; the eligibility of the holders of such degrees to

register themselves as Pharmacists and the

responsibilities and ethical standards of the Pharmacists.

If a degree qualifies a person to carry on his vocation as a

Pharmacist, there is no reason why he should be excluded

from participating in any recruitment process for
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
34/72

Government jobs. Exclusion, seen in this perspective,

would clearly be violative of the graduate degree holders’

right to be considered for appointment for Government

jobs. This, in effect, impairs their right to life.

43. The right to life is a basic human right

assured by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which

comprehends something more than mere animal

existence, i.e., dignity of an individual. Feild, J. in Munn

Vs. Illionois : (1994) U.S. 113, 154 (1876) has held

that by the term life, something more is meant than mere

animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation

extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is

enjoyed. In Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal

Corporation : (1985) 3 SCC 545 , the Supreme Court

has further laid down that an equally important facet of

right to life is the right to livelihood because no person

can live without the means of livelihood.

44. Public employment opportunity is a national

wealth in which all citizens are equally entitled to share.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
35/72

The right to public employment and its concomitant right

to livelihood is thus fortified under the canopy of the

protective umbrella of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India [also refer to Delhi Transport

Corporation Vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors. :

(1991) Supp. 1 SCC 600].

45. Developing the argument further, the

learned Advocates have pointed out that in Shri R.K.

Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors. : AIR

1958 SC 538, the Supreme Court enumerated various

tests adopted and applied to test the validity of any Act

Central or State, viz., (a) that a law may be constitutional

even though it relates to a single individual who may be

treated as a class by himself; (b) that there is always a

presumption in favour of constitutionality of an

enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to

show that there has been a clear transgression of the

constitutional principles; (c) that it must be presumed

that the legislature understands and correctly appreciates
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
36/72

the need of its own people and that its laws are directed

to problems, made manifest by experience and that its

discriminations are based on adequate grounds; (d) that

the legislature is free to recognize degrees of harm and

may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need

is deemed to be the clearest; (e) that in order to sustain

the presumption of constitutionality, the Court may take

into consideration matters of common knowledge,

matters of common report, the history of the times and

may assume every state of facts which can be conceived

existing at the time of legislation and; (f) that while good

faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part

of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on

the face of law or the surrounding circumstances brought

to the notice of the Court on which the classification may

reasonably be regarded as based.

46. The presumption of constitutionality

however cannot be carried to the extent of always holding

that there must be some undisclosed and unknown
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
37/72

reasons for subjecting certain individuals of or

corporations to hostile or discriminating legislation.

47. These principles, it has been argued, will

have to be borne in mind by the Courts when it is called

upon to adjudge the constitutionality of any particular

law, attacked as discriminatory and violative of the equal

protection of the laws.

48. It was, thus, contended that notwithstanding

the presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an

enactment, in the present case, in the absence of any

empirical study or formulations that Diploma in Pharmacy

is better suited for hospital administration and that the

holders of diploma have lesser windows/opening for

public employment for the post of Pharmacists in

hospitals, it is necessary to exclude the higher degree

holders from participation. This rationale belies the

factual scenario existing today and is also not in

consonance with the Pharmacy Act and the Regulations

framed thereunder, which recognize the Diploma and B.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
38/72

Pharma as degrees entitling the holders thereof to carry

on the vocation/profession of Pharmacists. A Pharmacist

would be required to do his job in Hospitals; in the

industrial wing of the Health Department; in the Industry

of manufacturing drugs as Drug Inspectors and at all

places and positions where there is a requirement of a

Pharmacist. It is only for this that the State Government

in its Insurance Sector and other Departments have not

made any such exclusion with respect to higher degree

holders. It is also not in dispute that course curriculum

for a Diploma and B. Pharma are the same so far as core

subjects are concerned, which the Central Government

also recognizes.

49. For any classification to survive the test of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it must be based

on intelligible differentia and it must have a rational nexus

to the objects sought to be achieved. The classification

ought not ever to be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It

must rest always upon real and substantial distinction,
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
39/72

bearing a reasonable and just relation to the things in

respect to which the classification is made; and

classification made without any reasonable basis should

be regarded as invalid. If classification is made on

irrelevant factors or not recognizing relevant factors, such

classification cannot withstand the challenge of Article 14

of the Constitution of India.

50. An administrative or a legislative measure

must not be more drastic than it is necessary for attaining

the desired result (the proportionality test). There is no

proportionality in the impugned Rules of 2014, as it

inflicts more harm to higher degree holders than

compared to the benefits to the diploma holders only.

The distinction sought to be made is absolutely vague,

which serves no good purpose.

51. In further support of the petitioners, Mr.

Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Advocate and Mr. Prashant

Sinha, the learned Advocate have submitted that all

efforts should be made to reconcile the provisions
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
40/72

contained in the impugned Rules of 2014 and the central

legislation in a harmonious manner so as to avoid the

declaration of invalidity. It could be best done by deleting

the “note” in the impugned Rules that only those B.

Pharma and M. Pharma holders could apply to the

recruitment process who essentially have acquired

Diploma in Pharmacy.

52. In Chandrashekhar Singh and Ors. Vs.

State of Jharkhand and Ors. : 2025 LiveLaw (SC)

336/2025 SCC OnLine SC 595, the Supreme Court has

held that candidates cannot be solely rejected on the

ground of their having higher degrees than prescribed

qualification.

53. Here, the selection pool for the purpose of

appointment of Pharmacists is of registered Pharmacists.

In this regard, the Pharmacy Act and the Regulations of

2015 are relevant, which provide the definition of

Pharmacists to include the diploma holders and degree

holders both. The State has framed the impugned Rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
41/72

of 2014, which is not in consonance, but in derogation of

the Central Act. Even though, the impugned Rules

occupies different field, yet the constitutional validity can

be tested on the ground that the same is violative of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, whereby a class

within a class has been carved out, tantamounting to class

legislation, which not only offends Article 14 but also

Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

54. The micro-classification sought to be made

by the State serves no purpose and has no substantial

basis. The sub-categorization of the classification is

patently unreasonable [also refer to State of Punjab Vs.

Davinder Singh : (2025) 1 SCC 1/2024 SCC OnLine

SC 1860].

55. Mr. Prashant Sinha, the learned Advocate

has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal

Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy

and Ors. : (2021) 10 SCC 657 , where it has been held
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
42/72

that in exercise of powers vested in the Pharmacy Act,

1948, the PCI has framed a number of Regulations for

prescribing minimum standards of education as well as

regulating the subject of Pharmacy in India. As per the

preamble of the Pharmacy Act of 1948, it has been

enacted to make better provisions for the regulation of

the profession and practice of Pharmacy and for that

purpose to constitute Pharmacy Councils. The Act

ensures that there is a seamless regulation of the

profession.

56. In the field of Pharmacy, thus, the Pharmacy

Act, 1948 is a special law. From the relevant provisions

of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, more particularly, Sections

10, 12, 13, 16, 29, 32, 35, 36 and 42, it is clear that

Pharmacy Act, 1948 exclusively covers all areas including

the approval of courses; laying down course contents;

eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers;

evaluation standards of examination; grant of

registration; entry of higher qualification in the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
43/72

discipline; taking action for infamous conduct, etc. It is a

complete code in itself, which recognizes Diploma and B.

Pharma, both, as the core qualification for a Pharmacist.

The distinction sought to be made by the State is, thus,

impermissible. The subject of Pharmacy is special and

not general and, therefore, in all its perspectives, the

Pharmacy Act, 1948 must prevail. It is not for the State

to reject the declaration of the Pharmacy Act that both D.

Pharma and B. Pharma degree holders have the

entitlement to be a Pharmacist, subject to their

registration with the respective State Councils.

57. The State cannot be allowed to make sub-

classification amongst the registered Pharmacists on the

basis of qualification [refer to D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs.

Union of India : AIR 1983 SC 130].

58. The respondent/State, it has been argued,

though accepts the candidates who have obtained B.

Pharma degree through lateral entry, but they reject

those candidates who have taken admission directly after
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
44/72

10+2 with Science, which is nothing but micro-

classification.

59. Supporting the stand of the petitioners, Mr.

S.D. Sanjay, the learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for the Pharmacy Council of India has

submitted that the Council has sent a letter dated

13.03.2025 to the Secretary of the Bihar Technical

Service Commission, Patna, requesting to amend the

advertisement in question to comply with the Pharmacy

Act of 1948 and permit all the candidates to participate in

the recruitment process who have passed B. Pharma or

M. Pharma or Pharma D. from the PCI approved

Institutions for the post of Pharmacists. It has been

clarified in the afore-noted letter that as on date, Diploma

in Pharmacy is the minimum qualification for registration

as a Pharmacist.

60. For registration as a Pharmacist under the

Pharmacy Act, a candidate must have passed the Diploma

in Pharmacy or Degree in Pharmacy or Pharma D. from
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
45/72

an institution recognized under Section 12 of the

Pharmacy Act, 1948.

61. Diploma in Pharmacy is a two-years course

after 10+2, followed by 500 hours of practical training,

spread over for a period of not less than three months,

and Degree in Pharmacy is a four-years course after

10+2; whereas Pharma D. is a six-years course after

10+2. The registration of Pharmacists is done by the

State Pharmacy Councils constituted by the State

Governments under Section 19 of the Pharmacy Act. The

registration is done under Section 33 read with 32(2) of

the Pharmacy Act, 1948, according to which, the

minimum statutory requirements for registration are that:

(a) an applicant should have attained the age of 18 years

and pay the prescribed fee; (b) the applicant should

reside or carry on business or profession of Pharmacy in

the State; (c) applicant should have passed an approved

examination or he should possess a qualification approved

under Section 14 of the Pharmacy Act or he is a
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
46/72

registered Pharmacist in an other State.

62. Any Pharmacist could act as an important

member of the health care team. Their role have become

very important as they are the common point of contact

between the patients and the Doctors and are trained to

play a key role, both in disease prevention and drug

safety.

63. Thus, the PCI is of the view that even

though the prescriptions in the Act and the Regulations,

referred to above, do not particularly pertain to public

employment, but if seen in the context of a post of a

Pharmacist and the persons who could practice as

Pharmacists, the rationale behind excluding persons of

higher degree is non-existent and is hit by the vice of

micro-classification, which per se is impermissible.

64. The countervailing arguments advanced by

the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State is

that the issue in question is no longer res-integra as it has

been settled by a plethora of precedents.
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
47/72

65. In L.P.A. No. 1416 of 2018 [Bihar State

Power (Holding) Company Ltd. through its Chairman &

Ors. Vs. Md. Asif Hussain & Ors.], wherein the issue

was whether the prescription of requisite qualification for

recruitment as Junior Electric Engineer being Diploma in

Electrical Engineer from a recognized institute/college

duly recognized by the State/Central Government

approved by the AICTE, could be questioned on the

ground of such prescription confining the eligibility

qualification to the diploma holders only, the Division

Bench of this Court held that it was always open for the

employer to prescribe the qualifications and if any

alteration is made as against the earlier policy, the same

cannot be said to be suffering from any arbitrariness or

violation of law; which judgment was based on an analysis

of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jyoti K.K. &

Ors. Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. :

(2010) 15 SCC 596; State of Haryana & Anr. Vs.

Abdul Gaffar Khan & Anr. : (2006) 11 SCC 153; State
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
48/72

of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Anita & Ors. : (2015) 2 SCC

170; P.M. Latha & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. :

(2003) 3 SCC 541; Yogesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt.

(NCT of Delhi) : (2003) 3 SCC 548 . The view of the

Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court in

special leave to appeal, bearing S.L.P. No. 1187 of 2019

[The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd. through

its Chairman and two others. Vs. Md. Asif Hussain and

five others].

66. Identical view was taken by a Division Bench

of this Court in L.P.A. No. 158 of 2020 [The State of

Bihar & Anr. Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors.] and connected

appeals, wherein it was held that mere acquisition of

higher qualification directly and without basic qualification

of Diploma in Pharmacy would not enable any higher

degree holder to participate in the process of selection

where the minimum qualification fixed was diploma.

67. The same views have been expressed by the

Kerala and Jammu & Kashmir High Courts.

Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
49/72

68. Again, in a cluster of petitions, the lead case

being C.W.J.C. No. 7714 of 2023 [Appu Kumar Vs. The

State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of

Bihar], this Court, in the same composition, had the

occasion to deal with a similar issue. In that case, the

petitioners had B.Tech Civil Degree from institutions

recognized by AICTE, who had challenged the

constitutionality of Rule 8 (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Bihar

Water Resource Department Subordinate Engineering

(Civil) Cadre Recruitment Rules, 2023, which prescribed

diploma or equivalent in Civil/Mechanical/Electrical

Engineering as the qualification for appointment to posts

of Junior Engineer on the ground of same being arbitrary,

irrational and unconstitutional. The challenge was

primarily on the ground that the normal rule is that the

candidates with higher education ought to be deemed to

be fulfilling the lesser qualification prescribed for the post

if the higher qualification is in the same channel/line.

Reading the technical qualification prescribed in the rules
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
50/72

narrowly would lead to shutting out eligible candidates

with higher Degree of Engineering in the same line as of

Diploma in Civil Engineering.

69. Fixation of such eligibility qualification, it

was contended, was arbitrary, irrational and

unconstitutional because it excluded from consideration

for appointment of such persons having higher degrees in

the same line of reasoning. There was no rationale or

objective, it was contended, behind such fixation of

eligibility qualifications.

70. The contentions were sought to be fortified

with reference to the judgments of the Supreme Court in

Jyoti K.K. (supra) and Puneet Sharma & Ors. Vs.

Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. :

(2021) 16 SCC 340.

71. In Jyoti K.K. (supra) while inviting

applications for selection to the post of Sub-Engineers

Electrical in the Kerala State Electricity Board, the Kerala

Public Service Commission had issued notification
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
51/72

providing diploma in Electrical Engineering of a

recognized institution after three years course of study as

the qualification for the post. The B.Tech degree holders

in Electrical Engineering and persons holding bachelor’s

degree in Electrical Engineering were ousted from the

zone of consideration. The Kerala Public Service

Commission had contended that graduates in engineering

and persons possessing other qualification than what was

prescribed in the advertisement could not have been

taken as a higher qualification as those were not

equivalent qualification prescribed for that post and the

persons who possessed higher qualifications could only be

considered in cases where they acquired such higher

qualification after acquiring the prescribed qualification.

However, a provision in the Kerala State and Subordinate

Services Rules 1956 provided that notwithstanding

anything contained in the rules, higher qualifications

which pre-supposes the acquisition of the lower

qualification prescribed for the post would also be
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
52/72

sufficient for the post. The Kerala High Court had rejected

the contentions of the applicants but the Supreme Court

had held that in the event of the Government holding the

view that only diploma-holders should have applied for

the post of Sub-Engineers but not all those who

possessed higher qualification, either the rule in question

should have excluded the candidates who possessed

higher qualification or the position should have been

made clear that degree-holders shall not be eligible to

apply for such post. When that position is not clear but

on the other hand, the rules do not disqualify per se the

holders of the higher qualifications in the same faculty, it

was clear that the rule was not understood in an

appropriate manner. The order of the High Court,

therefore, was not sustained and it was found that

persons with higher qualification also would be eligible.

However, since the diploma holders had already been

selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission, the

Supreme Court chose not to disturb such appointments
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
53/72

but directed the State to consider the case of eligible

degree-holders against existing vacancies.

72. The aforesaid judgment was primarily based

on a provision of the rules which provided that

notwithstanding anything contained in any rules or special

rules or qualifications recognized by executive orders or

standing orders of the Govt. as equivalent to a

qualification specified for a post in the special rules, such

of those higher qualifications would pre-suppose the

acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the

post as that also shall be sufficient.

73. In Puneet Sharma (supra), the Supreme

Court was confronted with the issue whether a degree in

Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics

Engineering is a technically higher qualification than a

diploma in that discipline and whether degree-holders

would be eligible for appointment to the post of Junior

Engineers (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment

rules.

Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
54/72

74. The minimum essential qualification

provided for recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer

(Electrical) there was matriculation with diploma in

Electrical/Electronics/Electronics and Communication/

Computer Science from the recognized Institutions

/Board/University duly recognized by the Central or State

Govt.

75. The degree-holders in the discipline had also

applied for the post but their final results were not

declared. They had approached the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh in writ proceedings claiming that since

they possessed higher educational qualification than the

prescribed minimum (and advertised) qualifications, they

could not be denied consideration.

76. The diploma-holders had opposed that claim

and had argued that the qualifications possessed by the

degree-holders was neither higher nor to be considered in

view of the Recruitment Rules as also on the basis of the

advertisement issued for the purpose by the Himachal
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
55/72

Pradesh Staff Selection Commission.

77. On behalf of the degree-holders, it was

contended that in the event of minimum qualification

being prescribed without any bar preventing appointment

of degree holders to the post, diploma had to be

considered as only a minimum requirement, especially in

view of the rules for appointment to higher promotional

post of Assistant Engineers Electrical providing for 5%

quota for those who possessed degree at the time of their

appointment as Junior Engineer Electrical and 5%

separately for those who would acquire the degree during

their service as Junior Engineer Electrical after their

confirmation. The minimum qualification prescribed

would definitely entitle an employer to choose a person

with higher qualification as “minimum” provides a cut-off

filter for the same and does not debar recruitment of

candidates having higher qualification.

78. The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity

Board had supported the case of the degree-holders and
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
56/72

had argued that the Rule in question ought to be

interpreted and applied to permit degree-holders a chance

at selection. Not doing so would amount to excluding

better qualified persons and to rob the employer of the

chance of choosing a better qualified candidate.

79. It was also contended on behalf of the State

Electricity Board that it is the inherent right of the

employer to seek out better qualified individuals for public

appointment and equivalence of qualification is not a

matter for the Courts to determine.

80. Thus, the decision of the High Court in

allowing the claim of the diploma-holders holding that a

degree is a not better qualification than a diploma without

any expert view was contrary to the settled law.

81. The Supreme Court while deciding the issue,

referred to the judgment in P.M. Latha Vs. State of

Kerela : (2003) 3 SCC 541. The issue in P.M. Latha

(supra) was whether the prescribed and advertised

qualification of Trained Teacher’s Certificate (TTC)
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
57/72

included persons who were having B-Ed degrees. The

Supreme Court had held that B-Ed qualification could not

be considered as a higher qualification than TTC and that

the TTC qualification was given to teachers especially

trained to teach small children of primary classes,

whereas those with B-Ed were trained to impart education

to students of higher classes.

82. Similar view was expressed in Yogesh

Kumar (supra).

83. The Supreme Court had also referred to

Jyoti K.K. (supra) and had noted that the decision

therein was based on a provision in the rule which clarified

that those with higher qualification would be deemed to

have acquired the lower qualification prescribed for the

post and that would be sufficient for eligibility.

84. Another decision which was considered by

the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma (supra) was State

of Punjab vs. Anita (supra). In that case also the

minimum qualification prescribed for JBT teachers was
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
58/72

two years Junior Basic Teachers Training. It was held that

those with M.Sc, B.Ed and M.A qualifications were

ineligible, looking at the nature of the job which was of

teaching primary classes.

85. In all these cases, a distinction had been

made with the facts in Jyoti (supra), as in Jyoti the

Appointing Authority had the option of considering

appointment of persons with higher qualifications.

86. The next case referred to in Puneet Sharma

(supra) was Zahoor Ahmad Rather vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad :

(2019) 2 SCC 404. In that case, the post in question

was of Technician-III in the Power Development

Department in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The

relevant stipulation regarding qualification was

matriculation with ITI in the relevant trade. In that case,

the appellants had held diploma in Electrical Engineering

but they were disqualified. The Supreme Court

adumbrated that while prescribing the qualifications for a

post, the State as an employer bears in mind several
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
59/72

features including the nature of the job; the aptitudes

requisite for the official discharge of duties; the

functionality of a qualification and the content of the

course of studies which leads up to the acquisition of

qualification. The State is entrusted with the authority to

assess the needs of the Public Services. Exigencies of

administration falls within the domain of administrative

decision-making. The State is perfectly entitled as a

Public Employer to take into account social perspectives

requiring creation of job opportunities across the societal

structure, which would essentially fall in the domain of

policy matters. Judicial review must tread warily.

87. It was in this context, that in Zahoor Ahmad

Rather (supra), decision in Jyoti K.K. (supra) was

understood especially in the context of a special statutory

rule under which the holding of a higher qualification pre-

supposed the acquisition of a lower qualification, which

was considered to be sufficient for the post.

88. After having gone through all the afore-
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
60/72

noted judgments, the Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma

and Others (supra), referred to above, examined the

Rules, especially the sub-quotas for 5 percent of the

candidates who would be diploma holders who would

acquire degree qualification during service as Junior

Engineers and 5 percent for those candidates, who would

acquire degrees before joining as Junior Engineers.

89. It was thus, read that the rule making

authority had in mind that degree holders too would

compete for the position of Junior Engineers as

individuals holding equivalent or higher qualification.

90. The Supreme Court noted that if such

interpretation were not given, there would be no meaning

in the 5 percent of sub-quota set apart for those who

were degree holders before joining as Junior Engineers in

terms of the extant Recruitment Rules.

91. The Supreme Court also took note of the

latest amendment in the concerned rules clarifying that

even for the post of Junior Engineers, those individuals
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
61/72

holding higher qualification would be eligible to compete.

Though, the amending rules were brought into force

prospectively but since they were only clarificatory, it was

held that they would apply to the recruitment which was

the subject matter of the controversy from before.

92. This Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 7714 of

2023 along with C.W.J.C. No. 8423 of 2023 [Appu

Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. And

Arvind Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.] ,

therefore, concluded as hereunder:-

(a) the Rules in question are very specific with
respect to the qualification prescribed for the post
of Junior Engineer, which is diploma in Civil,
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering;

(b) There is no rationale behind holding a
degree in such discipline to be in-line/channel
higher qualification which would subsume in itself
the lesser qualification of diploma;

(c) The prescription of qualification for post is
a matter of recruitment policy and the State as
the employer is entitled to prescribe the
qualifications as the condition of eligibility;

(d) It is no part of the role or function of
judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the
prescribed qualifications;

(e) Equivalence of a qualification is also not a
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
62/72

matter which could be determined in exercise of
the power of judicial review, which squarely falls
in the domain of the State/Recruiting Authority;

(f) It cannot be denied that while prescribing
qualifications for a particular post, the employer
may pitch in various factors especially dealing
with functionality of the post as also the creation
of the job opportunities across the societal
structure;

(g) It was with a conscious intent in the mind
that the qualification prescribed in the Rules was
not preceded with word “minimum”, leaving the
qualification of diploma to be the only qualification
determining eligibility unless a higher qualification
were in the same line/channel; (h) For these
reasons, the reference of the judgments in Jyoti
K.K. and Puneet Sharma
(supra) do not
support the case of the petitioners.

93. The learned Advocate General has thus

summarized that there is no dispute about the

competence of the Governor of Bihar to frame the Cadre

Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The

prescriptions of educational qualification for a pharmacist

are in the Pharmacy Act of 1948 and the Regulations of

2015, which is limited only to education in the field of

Pharmacy and it will not govern the State’s right to

prescribe minimum/threshold qualification for
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
63/72

participating in the recruitment process. There is a

rationale behind limiting the recruitment process and

confining it to diploma holders only as they are best suited

for health-care services as Pharmacists and they have no

other avenue of appointment.

94. It was further contended that persons with

higher degrees have not been prevented from

participating in the process, but with the caveat that they

must possess the basic and essential qualification of

diploma. Such Legislation/Cadre Rules is neither hit by

Articles 14 or 16 or 19 of the Constitution of India. There

is an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the

objects sought to be achieved. The five hundred hours’

compulsory hospital training, which is mandatory for a

diplomate, is not part of the course curriculum of B.

Pharma. This provides for the empirical basis for making

such classification, which cannot be called class-legislation

or micro-classification.

95. It was also asserted by the learned Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
64/72

General that merely because there is a provision for

lateral entry of diplomates in the second year of B.

Pharma course, it will not make B. Pharma course or M.

Pharma course in the same line/channel of education.

96. The diplomates and graduates are trained

differently in different subjects.

97. Taking this line of reasoning further, Mr.

Lalit Kishore and Mr. Santosh Kumar, the learned Senior

Advocates for the intervenor/respondents, namely, the

diplomates, have submitted that a legislation could be

struck down only on grounds of lack of legislative

competence and violation of any of the fundamental

rights in Part-III of the Constitution of India. There is

nothing on record whereby the validity of the legislation

could be questioned on the ground of lack of legislative

competence.

98. Apart from this, it has been submitted that

no enactment as such could be struck down only on the

ground of arbitrariness. For striking it down, arbitrariness
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
65/72

has to be read in conjunction with any other constitutional

infirmity in order to invalidate a Rule which has come

through the route of Article 309. The jurists have always

critiqued that substantive due process only puts the

Courts in the position of arbiters of the wisdom of the

legislature in enacting particular piece of legislation [refer

to Ashok Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. :

(2008) 6 SCC 1; K.T. Plantation (Pvt. Limited) &

Anr.Vs. State of Karnataka : (2011) 9 SCC 1 ].

99. It has been argued that plea of

unreasonableness, arbitrariness and proportionality etc.

would always raise an element of subjectivity, on which a

Court ought not to strike down a statute; otherwise the

Court will be substituting its wisdom to that of the

legislature.

100. In matters of appointment laying down and

prescribing through rules, the minimum qualification is

the prerogative and is in the domain of the administrative

authorities, which cannot be impeached on the ground
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
66/72

that it has to be tailor-made to suit certain individuals

[refer to V.K. Sood Vs. Secretary, Civil Aviation &

Ors. : 1993 SCC (LNS) 907/1993 Supp. (3) SCC 9].

101. The Rules made by the President or the

Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution

of India are subject to any law made by the Parliament or

the State Legislature and the power includes Rules

regulating the recruitment and conditions of service or

post. They are statutory and legislative in character. The

statutory rules thus made are subject to the law that may

be made by the State Legislature. In B.S. Vadera Vs.

Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1969 SC 118/1968 SCC

OnLine SC 39, it has been held that the rules made under

the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution shall have

effect, subject to the provisions of the Act, i.e., if the

appropriate Legislature has passed any Act. In its

absence, the Rules made by the President/Governor or by

such person as he may direct, are to have full effect.

102. We have given thoughtful consideration
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
67/72

over the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties.

103. An American Jurist, Alexander Bicken, has

observed that judicial review is a counter majoritarian

force in a legal system. Whenever a legislative Act is

declared unconstitutional, the will of the representatives

of the people is thwarted. Invalidating a statute is a

grave step and must therefore be taken in a very rare and

exceptional circumstance. The power has to be exercised

with great judicial restraint.

104. Professor James Bradley Thayer in his

seminal work “The origin and scope of the American

doctrine of constitutional law” says that Judges must take

care not to intrude upon the domain of the legislative

branch and full and fair play must be permitted to the

wide margin of considerations which are addressed by the

practical judgments of the legislative body. Thayer,

therefore, has argued that a Court can declare a statute

to be unconstitutional not merely because it is possible to

do that or hold that view but only when that is the only
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
68/72

possible view, not open to rational questions and there is

no manner of doubt that the legislation in question is

flagrantly unconstitutional and there is no way of avoiding

such decision.

105. If two views are possible, one making the

statute constitutional and the other making it

unconstitutional, the former view must always be

preferred. Every effort should be made to uphold the

constitutional validity of a statute. It should not be the

concern of the Court whether the legislation is in its

opinion wise or unwise or sound or unsound. The

Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Maharajadhiraja

Sir Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga : (1952) 1 SCC

528 has very aptly summed up that the legislature is the

best Judge of what is good for the community, by whose

suffrage it comes into existence [also refer to Md. Hanif

Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar : AIR 1958 SC 731;

Mahanth Moti Das Vs. S.P. Shahi : AIR 1959 SC 942 ;

B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. : (1999) 9 SCC 700 ;
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
69/72

State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Distillery Ltd. : (1997) 2 SCC

453; and Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) v. Union of

India; AIR 1960 SC 554].

106. In R.K. Garg Vs. Union of India; (1981)

4 SCC 675, it was observed that the laws relating to

economic activities should normally not be interfered with

but laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech,

religion etc., require to be carefully scrutinized to

ascertain whether the legislation on these subjects is

violative of the rights and liberties of the citizens.

107. No doubt, the Courts must keep in mind, as

has been observed by the Supreme Court in Union of

India & Anr. Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors. :

(2010) 4 SCC 290, the constitutional obligation of the

Governments to act as model employers, which is

consistent with their role in a welfare State, but striking

down a statute lightly is not what has been propounded.

108. The Government, in its wisdom, has found

that course curriculum of Diploma in Pharmacy is
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
70/72

different from what it is for graduate degrees. The

experience has shown that diplomates are better suited

for health services.

109. Could this be questioned by the Courts?

110. As has rightly been pointed out by the

learned Advocate General, the very fact that diplomates

have no other avenue of appointments and that they have

undergone the intensive training in hospital-care, are

some of the indices on which the rules are is said to have

been made. There is no exclusion of graduate degree

holders provided they possess the basic qualification of

Diploma in Pharmacy.

111. Under such circumstances, it cannot be

said that the impugned cadre rules has saddled

graduates/post-graduates in Pharmacy to any

disproportionate harm. It has also been decided on

several occasions that B. Pharma and M. Pharma are not

in the same channel of education as that of diplomates,

notwithstanding the fact that the diplomates can take
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
71/72

lateral entry in B. Pharma course in its second year.

112. No doubt, graduate and post-graduate

degrees in Pharmacy are higher qualification but when the

essential/minimum qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy

has been fixed in the cadre rules, it cannot be tinkered

with only on the ground of the same not being wise or

sound or as suggested, arbitrary. The prescriptions of

course study for Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act of

1948 and the Regulations of 2015, referred to above, are

only with respect to the eligibility of such graduates, post-

graduates and diplomates to practice Pharmacy, subject

to their registration with the respective Pharmacy

Councils of States but that does not pertain to the

matters of recruitment, which are in the exclusive domain

of the appropriate Governments.

113. Thus, finding that the fixation of minimum

qualification for recruitment of Pharmacist and the “note”

in the cadre rules providing that holders of higher degree

could apply but subject to their having obtained the
Patna High Court CWJC No.313 of 2025 dt.10-04-2025
72/72

minimum qualification of diploma is neither arbitrary or

exclusionary per se.

114. In that connection, we have found the

request made to the Bihar Technical Service Commission

by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to be totally

unwarranted.

115. For the afore-noted reasons all the

petitions fail.

116. All the writ petitions are disposed of

accordingly.

117. I.A./s, if any, also stand disposed off in

terms of this judgment.

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)

Partha Sarthy, J: I agree.

                                                                      (Partha Sarthy, J)

Praveen-II/Krishna

AFR/NAFR                 AFR
CAV DATE                 04.04.2025
Uploading Date           10.04.2025
Transmission Date        NA
 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here