New Delhi, India – The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment stating that “qualifications must come from central law, not state rules,” reinforcing that State governments cannot override central legislation when it comes to eligibility for Drug Inspector recruitment.
The Bench made it clear that while States can appoint Drug Inspectors, they cannot prescribe additional or differing eligibility criteria beyond what the central rules specify. Any such State rule is now declared unlawful and unconstitutional.
Background of the Drug Inspector Eligibility
The issue emerged when the States of Haryana and Karnataka issued recruitment notifications requiring extra qualifications — specifically prior experience in manufacturing or testing certain drugs — in addition to educational criteria. These conditions were introduced under State service rules framed through Article 309 of the Constitution.
Aspiring candidates challenged these notifications in High Courts, asserting that:
- The Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules fully occupy the field of qualification standards, and
- States lack authority to add extra conditions.
Both the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court agreed with the candidates and quashed the recruitment processes. The States then moved the matter to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Key Observations on Drug Inspector Eligibility
The Supreme Court clearly stated that appointment powers might be shared between the Centre and States, but the power to prescribe eligibility qualifications lies exclusively with the Central Government under Sections 21 and 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The court analysed the legislative history of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, noting it was enacted before independence and continues to function as central legislation under Article 372 of the Constitution.
2. Rule 49 — Only Central Qualifications Apply
Rule 49 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 clearly sets the educational qualifications necessary to be appointed as a Drug Inspector. The rule mentions experience requirements only as a condition to authorise inspectors to carry out specific duties, such as inspecting Schedule C drug manufacturing — not as a basic eligibility criterion.
Therefore:
- Educational qualifications approved under Rule 49 remain the true criteria for appointment.
- States cannot transform limited experience requirements into essential eligibility conditions.
3. State Service Rules Cannot Override Central Law
The Supreme Court rejected arguments that Article 309 enables States to add qualifications by their own service rules. The court clarified that:
- Article 309 is subject to constitutional limits and cannot be exercised to override or dilute existing central laws;
- The qualified field in this matter is fully occupied by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules themselves.
4. State Rules Violate Fundamental Rights
The court held that when State service rules introduce extra eligibility requirements beyond central provisions, they violate Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution.
