Right Dose Of Merit: Higher Degree Doesn't Mean Automatic Eligibility For Job, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an employer has the exclusive right to determine the relevancy and suitability of qualifications for a specific post. The bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, upheld the constitutional validity of the Bihar Pharmacists Cadre Rules, 2014, which mandates a “Diploma in Pharmacy” as the essential minimum qualification for recruitment to the basic grade of pharmacists in the state.

The judgment settles a long-running legal battle initiated by candidates holding Bachelor of Pharmacy (BPharm) and Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) degrees. The appellants had challenged their exclusion from a recruitment drive for 2,473 posts, arguing that their higher degrees should automatically render them eligible,

especially since central regulations under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, recognise both diploma and degree holders as registered pharmacists. They contended that the state’s refusal to treat a degree as an “in-line” higher qualification was arbitrary and violative of the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

However, the apex court rejected these arguments, drawing a sharp distinction between the professional registration of a pharmacist and the recruitment policies of a state government. Writing for the bench, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that while the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) creates a broad pool of eligible professionals, it does not confer a vested right to public employment. The court noted that the state’s preference for diploma holders was based on a rational policy choice: the Diploma in Pharmacy course involves 500 hours of intensive hospital-based practical training—far exceeding the 150 hours required for degree holders—making diplomates better suited for the dispensing and patient-counselling duties required in government health centres.

Furthermore, the court accepted the state’s argument regarding “limited employment avenues” for diploma holders. It noted that degree holders have far wider career opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry, research, and as drug inspectors—roles for which diploma holders are ineligible. By restricting the basic cadre to diploma holders, the state was effectively protecting a specific class of trained professionals. The ruling reaffirms that unless a recruitment rule is demonstrably perverse or irrational, courts should not substitute their wisdom for that of the employer, nor should they attempt to rewrite service rules or declare the equivalence of disparate academic qualifications.