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
46/72registered 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
48/72of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Anita & Ors. : (2015) 2 SCC
(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
59/72features 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
62/72matter 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