Where two is equal to four? Here it is!

Recently Pharmacy Council of India has sent a circular to all State and Union Territory governments soliciting their comments on its proposal regarding pharmacists’ recruitment, promotion and service regulations. These proposals were discussed and finalised by Central Council members of PCI, it says.

We wonder whether they really read the proposal discussed and applied their mind to it before circulating or simply put their signature at the bottom of the proposal as usual!
 
High job, low qualification
In Schedule II of the document, drug information officer and clinical pharmacy officer are shown under group B and level 8 scale of pay. The qualification given in Schedule IV for both the posts are Degree in Pharmacy (B. Pharm)! Drug information service includes providing research data, clinical data, thesis, reviews etc and collecting and editing drug information which are given in the list of duties proposed there. How can an undergraduate provide such deep information and edit information as they never did any research work at undergraduate level? Hence the qualification and salary level in Schedule IV should be raised to M. Pharm and Pharm. D.

Similarly for clinical pharmacy officer post also B. Pharm is prescribed as qualification!  Are the Central Council members not aware of hospital training for the said work provided to Pharm. D graduates and not to B. Pharm graduates? They only designed and implemented syllabus for both courses! That's why the doubt arises whether Central Council members read this proposal or just signed at the bottom. Pharm. Ds have been fighting for the post for the last one decade! PCI has completely forgotten Pharm D it seems!  What a pity! Why is it not prescribed as qualification for clinical pharmacy officer post as in other countries? Pharm. D associations should protest immediately. Please raise the qualification and salary level of above two posts to group A and level 11 as both M. Pharm and Pharm D are 6-year courses.

In this connection we wish to point out, only for the clinical pharmacy officer post PCI has given (tough) job responsibilities at an astonishing 38 in number in the current document whereas for all other posts it is around 10. Where is the justification? Look at your own document dear PCI!

Two is equal to four!
Another big shock is in Schedule 3 page 9 of the circular. For group B entry level post of pharmacy officer and senior pharmacy officer the qualification given is diploma or degree in pharmacy and the salary for both the qualifications are the same!  How can a diploma and degree be equated? PCI knows very well that a diploma is a two years course and degree is, double, 4 years course!  How two is equal to 4?  If PCI itself equated like that, which government would give higher salary for degree holders? Even retail pharmacy shop owners and hospitals give little more salary for B. Pharm than D. Pharm holders. Are the people in PCI not aware?

How and why such proposals originate?
In order to retain D. Pharm at any cost and not to abolish it, PCI is doing all these somersaults! Earlier they gave a stillborn proposal for its retention in the new syllabus for B. Pharm, now this proposal!  Leave alone fighting for higher salary and status for pharmacists, these people are not even ready to demand or propose it. If this continues, the pharmacy profession will never ever come up and be respected in the society on par with their counterparts in other countries. PCI should aim high and let the state governments implement them as and when they have means and resources, but have an upper time limit.

Bright points
One proposal to be appreciated is that the chief pharmacy officer (Chief pharmacist) is brought under group A gazetted rank with level 10 scale of pay. Similarly, a district pharmacy officer/deputy director (Pharmacy) is proposed under group A and level 11 which is new, not available in many states like Tamil Nadu. But a gazetted rank cadre of medical store keeper (MSK) is available as a promotion post of chief pharmacist in Tamil Nadu but without insisting degree in pharmacy for the promotion! Equal post is absent in the present proposal. Also, there is a mistake, maybe due to oversight, that in the minimum condition of eligibility for promotion to ‘chief’ pharmacy officer, (from position 3 to4, in Schedule 3 page 6), it is given 5 years or 3-year experiences as ‘chief’ pharmacy officer required for D. Pharm and B. Pharm respectively, instead of ‘assistant’ pharmacy officer. Please correct it.

Fight between brothers!
As of now there is friction, disappointment and unemployment among diploma holders because degree holders get most of the post of pharmacists. Because of this current proposal PCI has given now a stage to D. Pharm and degree holders to fight for the same post. Thereby PCI is inadvertently prolonging the fight between brothers. A compromise should be reached at an early date to accommodate both the groups. Grading community pharmacies into A, B and C is one of the solutions as I wrote in one of my earlier articles “Boot is on the other leg, come forward PCI” (Pharmabiz on 10.12. 2020).

Solution to the problem
Our question is why can't the PCI prescribe B. Pharm as minimum qualification for senior pharmacy officer post and D. Pharm for pharmacy officer post?  If so, we can leave pharmacy officer posts entirely to the D. Pharm, (time being until it is abolished). PCI should insist that in any hospital out of the total pharmacists there should be 50% senior pharmacy officers and 50% pharmacy officers to accommodate both the groups.

Smooth upgradation of profession
For smooth upgradation without hurting anybody PCI should prescribe the pharmacy officers should complete B. Pharm practice 2 years course for promotion to senior pharmacy officer post. PCI can recommend paid study leave for it, for existing pharmacists. If it is implemented the proposed condition of 7-year experiences for that promotion can be withdrawn. If such a stipulation or compulsion is not brought, who will study the B. Pharm practice course which is remaining as a non-starter ever since its introduction by PCI a decade back? Even otherwise what is the necessity for studying B. Pharm practice course for a pharmacist? It is a simple logic, convention and wisdom higher the post higher should be the qualification. Mere experience or seniority is not recognised worldwide. We should go up the ladder and should not stagnate at the bottom forever. Hope PCI will withdraw the controversial circular, redraw and re-circulate. Let us believe good sense prevails!