Home  > Recent Judgements  > STATES CANNOT PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS BEYOND UNION LAW”: SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS

Jan  15- 2026

STATES CANNOT PRESCRIBE QUALIFICATIONS BEYOND UNION LAW”: SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. V. KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS. (WITH CONNECTED MATTERS)

Introduction

In a significant judgment reinforcing the federal balance under the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has held that States cannot prescribe additional or higher qualifications for public posts when the field is already occupied by Union law. The ruling arose from challenges to State-imposed qualifications for the post of Drug Inspector, which went beyond those prescribed under Central legislation.

The decision clarifies the scope of State powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and reiterates the supremacy of Central law in domains where Parliament has legislated exhaustively.

Background of the Dispute

The batch of appeals was heard by a Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi. The core issue concerned whether State Governments could prescribe additional essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector, distinct from those notified by the Union Government.

Under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Parliament has conferred powers on the Central Government to regulate qualifications for Drug Inspectors. In exercise of this authority, the Central Government framed the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, including Rule 49, which prescribes educational qualifications such as a degree in Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Sciences, or Medicine with specialization.

While Rule 49 contains a proviso requiring specific experience only for authorisation to inspect the manufacture of certain drugs, the States of Haryana and Karnataka converted this experience requirement into an essential qualification for initial appointment, by framing service rules under the proviso to Article 309.

This led to the exclusion of otherwise eligible candidates, who challenged the State action before the High Courts.

Key Legal Issue

Whether States, invoking the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, can prescribe qualifications for a public post that are inconsistent with or in addition to those laid down by the Union Government under a Central statute and rules.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court decisively rejected the States’ contentions and upheld the High Courts’ rulings. The Court held:

  • The power of the State under the proviso to Article 309 extends to regulation of recruitment and service conditions only insofar as such rules are not inconsistent with Central law.
  • Where Parliament has legislated on a subject and the Central Government has framed rules occupying the field, States lack competence to add qualifications unless expressly permitted.
  • Section 33 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 empowers only the Central Government to prescribe qualifications for Drug Inspectors, and Rule 49 exhaustively covers this field.

Justice Maheshwari, authoring the judgment, observed that the State-imposed experience requirement was “completely alien” to the statutory scheme, especially when the Central Rules consciously restricted such experience only to authorization for specific inspections, not initial appointment.

Importantly, the Court clarified that once it is found that the States lacked legislative competence, the issue of constitutional repugnancy does not even arise.

Final Directions Issued by the Court

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with detailed operative directions, including:

  1. State Public Service Commissions must complete selections by treating only the qualifications under the Drugs Rules as essential, ignoring State-imposed experience requirements.
  2. The Haryana Public Service Commission and Karnataka Public Service Commission were directed to redraw merit lists strictly in accordance with Rule 49.
  3. Candidates already appointed who fall within the revised merit lists shall continue in service with full consequential benefits.
  4. Those appointed but not figuring in the revised merit list may be continued at the State’s discretion only against supernumerary posts, with seniority placed at the bottom or determined as per law.
  5. Final merit lists are to be prepared within eight weeks, followed by appointments by the respective State Governments within a further eight weeks.

Constitutional and Administrative Significance

This judgment is a reaffirmation of two foundational principles:

  • Doctrine of Occupied Field: When the Union legislates comprehensively on a subject, States cannot trespass into that domain by prescribing parallel or additional requirements.
  • Limits on Article 309 Powers: While States have authority to frame service rules, such power is subordinate to Central statutes and rules framed thereunder.

The ruling safeguards uniformity in recruitment standards for technical posts governed by Central law and prevents fragmentation of eligibility norms across States.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar is a clear assertion of constitutional discipline in Centre State relations. By striking down State-imposed additional qualifications, the Court has ensured fidelity to Parliamentary intent and reinforced the supremacy of Central rules in occupied legislative fields. The judgment will have a lasting impact on public recruitment processes, particularly where Central regulatory frameworks exist, and serves as a caution against administrative overreach by States.