The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that restricting public employment eligibility to diploma holders while excluding degree and postgraduate candidates in pharmacy violates the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity. This judgment resolves a systemic exclusion that denied qualified professionals access to public sector roles despite meeting all other criteria.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, eleven candidates holding Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) or Master of Pharmacy (M.Pharm) degrees, challenged an advertisement dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CGVYAPAM) for the post of Pharmacist (Grade-II). The advertisement, issued under the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, restricted eligibility solely to candidates possessing a Diploma in Pharmacy. This exclusion barred all candidates holding higher qualifications, including B.Pharm and M.Pharm degrees, despite their registration with the Pharmacy Council of India and full professional competence.
Key Facts
- The petitioners held valid B.Pharm or M.Pharm degrees from recognized institutions
- All petitioners were duly registered with the Pharmacy Council of India
- The impugned advertisement (Annexure-P-2) was issued on 30.06.2025
- Entry No. 08 of Schedule-III of the 2013 Recruitment Rules prescribed "Diploma in Pharmacy" as the sole qualification
- The petitioners were eligible for the post under all other criteria including age, experience, and registration
- The petitioners filed the writ petition on 22.07.2025
- The last date for online application submission under the advertisement was 25.07.2025
Procedural History
- 22.07.2025: Writ Petition (WPS No. 8548 of 2025) filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court
- 25.07.2025: Court passed interim order directing CGVYAPAM to permit B.Pharm and M.Pharm candidates to apply, subject to final outcome
- 08.08.2025: Directorate of Health Services issued communication (Annexure-R-1) including B.Pharm and M.Pharm candidates in eligibility
- 17.03.2026: Final hearing conducted before Division Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that restricting eligibility to Diploma holders while excluding degree holders was arbitrary, irrational, and discriminatory. They argued that B.Pharm and M.Pharm graduates possess superior academic training, broader clinical knowledge, and greater regulatory compliance capacity than diploma holders. They relied on the principle of reasonable classification under Article 14 and the right to equal opportunity under Article 16. They cited Puneet Sharma & Others v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (C.A. No. 1318-1322 of 2021) where the Supreme Court held that excluding degree holders from similar recruitment was unconstitutional. They also relied on this Court’s own judgment in WPS No. 1983 of 2025 (Arvind Kumar & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh) dated 03.07.2025, which struck down identical restrictions for a different para-medical post.
For the Respondents
The State and CGVYAPAM conceded that the interim order of 25.07.2025 had been complied with by including degree holders in the recruitment process. They submitted that the grievance regarding the advertisement had been redressed through the communication dated 08.08.2025. However, they did not contest the constitutional challenge to Entry No. 08 of the 2013 Rules, effectively abandoning any defense of the restrictive eligibility criterion.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Declaration that Entry No. 08 of Schedule-III of the 2013 Rules is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16
- Direction to amend the Rules to include B.Pharm and M.Pharm as eligible qualifications
- Quashing of the impugned advertisement dated 30.06.2025
- Revision of eligibility criteria to align with NHM and other State recruitments
- Any other relief deemed just
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether restricting eligibility for the post of Pharmacist (Grade-II) to Diploma in Pharmacy holders, while excluding candidates holding Bachelor of Pharmacy or Master of Pharmacy degrees, constitutes an arbitrary and unreasonable classification violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that the classification between diploma and degree holders lacked any intelligible differentia or rational nexus with the object of recruitment. They emphasized that B.Pharm and M.Pharm graduates undergo three to five years of structured academic and clinical training, including pharmacology, therapeutics, and patient counseling, which exceeds the scope of a two-year diploma. They cited Puneet Sharma to show that the Supreme Court has consistently held that higher qualifications cannot be excluded from lower-level posts unless there is a compelling justification. They also relied on Arvind Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh to demonstrate that this Court had already invalidated identical restrictions in a parallel context.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the constitutional validity of Entry No. 08. It acknowledged compliance with the interim order by expanding eligibility to include degree holders. The respondents offered no substantive defense of the rule’s rationality or necessity, effectively conceding that the restriction could not withstand constitutional scrutiny.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the initial restriction in the advertisement was based solely on Entry No. 08 of the 2013 Recruitment Rules, which prescribed "Diploma in Pharmacy" as the only acceptable qualification. The Court noted that this exclusion was not based on any functional requirement of the post, nor was it supported by any expert committee report or policy rationale. The respondents had not demonstrated why a B.Pharm graduate, who has undergone more rigorous training, would be less suitable than a diploma holder.
"Exclusion of candidates possessing higher qualifications, despite being duly registered and otherwise eligible, does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved."
The Court emphasized that Article 14 prohibits arbitrary classification, and Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. A classification must satisfy two conditions: (i) it must be based on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object of the law. Here, the distinction between diploma and degree holders failed both tests. The Court held that the higher academic qualification of B.Pharm and M.Pharm candidates could only enhance, not diminish, their suitability for the role.
The Court further relied on its own recent decision in WPS No. 1983 of 2025, where it had struck down a similar restriction for a different para-medical post. The Court held that precedent binds, and inconsistency in applying constitutional principles across similar posts undermines public trust in recruitment processes.
The Court also noted that the respondents had already amended the eligibility criteria in response to the interim order, confirming that the restriction was not operationally necessary. This concession further weakened any argument in favor of maintaining the rule.
The Verdict
The writ petition was partly allowed. The Court declared Entry No. 08 to Schedule-III of the Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial Para-Medical and Nursing (Directorate of Health Services) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2013 ultra vires to the extent it restricts eligibility for the post of Pharmacist (Grade-II) to Diploma in Pharmacy holders and excludes candidates holding Bachelor of Pharmacy or Master of Pharmacy degrees. The State is directed to amend the Rules within a reasonable period to include B.Pharm and M.Pharm as eligible qualifications. The benefit of this order shall extend to all similarly situated candidates. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Academic Qualifications Must Reflect Functional Requirements
- Practitioners must challenge recruitment rules that impose lower academic thresholds while excluding higher-qualified candidates without justification
- Any restriction must be tied to demonstrable functional needs, not administrative convenience
- Merely citing "uniformity" or "tradition" is insufficient to justify exclusion under Article 14
Precedent Binding Across Similar Posts
- This judgment reinforces that rulings on constitutional violations in one recruitment category bind other similar categories
- If a rule is struck down for one para-medical post, identical rules for other posts are vulnerable to challenge
- State authorities must proactively harmonize recruitment rules across departments to avoid litigation
Interim Relief Can Trigger Systemic Change
- Courts may grant interim relief allowing excluded candidates to apply, which often forces authorities to revise rules
- Such interim orders are not merely procedural - they can catalyze permanent reform
- Practitioners should always seek interim directions to preserve rights during pendency
