Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vivek Vijayvargiya Son Of Shri Kedar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2022
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13906/2020
Vivek Vijayvargiya Son of Shri Kedar Vijay, Aged About 38 Years,
Ramgopal Bhawan, Near Vikas Medical, Mehandi Bag, Tonk,
Rajasthan-304001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department of Medical and Health, Govt. of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Pharmacy Council of Rajasthan, Through
Chairman, Govt. Dispensary Campus, Sardar Patel Marg,
Jaipur-302001.
3. Board of School And Technical Education, Chattisgarh
Through its Secretary Nitin Lamba S/o Balbir Singh
Lamba, R/o Building No. A-6, Nature City Mungeli Road
Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur-495001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.C. Goutam with
Mr. Rohit Goutam
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with
Ms. Vartika Mehra- no.2 &
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam-no.3
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
10/03/2022
This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the
respondents to issue the petitioner, Pharmacist Registration
Certificate.
The facts, as emerge from the writ petition, are that the
petitioner passed his secondary examination from the Board of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. Thereafter, he passed
senior secondary examination from the Board of School and
(Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:57:21 PM)
(2 of 7) [CW-13906/2020]
Technical Education, Chhattisgarh (for brevity, 'BSTE') and a
certificate dated 25.02.2014 was issued in this regard. Thereafter,
he did his diploma in Pharmacy from OPJS University, Churu and
was granted a provisional certificate dated 11.08.2018 to this
effect. Vide application dated 12.08.2018, he applied for
registration as Pharmacist with the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council
but, no action was taken thereupon. Hence, the writ petition.
The respondent no.2 in its reply submitted that since the
BSTE, from where the petitioner has passed senior secondary
examination, is not recognised by the Board of Secondary
Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, the petitioner is not entitled for
registration.
The respondent no.3 in its reply averred that the petitioner
has passed out senior secondary examination in the year 2014
from the answering respondent and at that time, it was having
recognition from the Board of Secondary Education, Raipur
(Chhattisgarh).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he
fulfills all the requisite criteria for registration as Pharmacist under
the Pharmacy Act, 1948, he is entitled for registration. He,
therefore, prayed that the respondent no.2 may be directed to
issue him requisite certificate.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, drawing attention
of this Court towards letter dated 21.08.2020 issued by Board of
Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer and the list appended
thereto, submitted that only Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary
Education, Raipur has been granted recognization by the
Rajasthan Board. Therefore, the petitioner having passed his
(Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:57:21 PM)
(3 of 7) [CW-13906/2020]
senior secondary examination from the BSTE is not entitled for
registration. Learned counsel submitted that though the BSTE was
granted provisional recognization by the Chhattisgarh Board of
Secondary Education, Raipur; but, the same was withdrawn
subsequently which was unsuccessfully challenged by the BSTE by
way of writ petition (civil) no.1556/2016): Board of School and
Technical Education, Bilaspur vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.09.2017. He
submitted that this Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot treat the
senior secondary examination passed out by the petitioner from a
Board not recognised by the Board of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Ajmer as equivalent to senior secondary examination
from the Rajasthan Board. He, in this regard, relies upon the
following judgments:
1. Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karanataka University & Anr.
and other connected matters: 1986 (Supp) SCC 740.
2. State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lata Arun: (2002) 6 SCC
252.
3. Devender Bhaskar & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.:
2021 SCC Online SC 1116.
He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.3, supporting the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that he has passed out senior secondary examination
from it during the period it was having recognization from the
Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education.
Heard. Considered.
The Education Regulations-1991 for diploma course in
Pharmacy issued by the Pharmacy Council of India under Section
(Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:57:21 PM)
(4 of 7) [CW-13906/2020]
10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 provides the eligibility for admission
to diploma in Pharmacy Part-I course as under:
"Minimum qualification for admission to Diploma in Pharmacy
Part-I course-A pass in any of the following examinations
with Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Mathematics.
(1) Intermediate examination in Science;
(2) The first year of the three year degree course in
Science;
(3) 10+2 examination (academic stream) in
Science;
(4) Pre-degree examinations;
(5) Any other qualification approved by the Pharmacy
council of India as equivalent to any of the above
examinations."
It is not disputed by the respondent no.2 that except the
10+2 examination from the Board of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan or from a Board recognised by the Rajasthan Board, the
petitioner does not fulfil the other requisite eligibility for his
registration as Pharmacist. However, the respondent no.2 could
not satisfy this Court any requirement either under the
Regulations-1991 or any other statutory provision requiring a
candidate for registration as Pharmacist with it to have passed
10+2 examination only from the Board of Secondary Education,
Rajasthan or from any Board recognised by the Rajasthan Board.
As is apparent from the minimum qualification as provided under
the Regulations-1991, no such condition is attached with the 10+2
examination. In absence of any such statutory provision, the
contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 cannot
be countenanced.
(Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:57:21 PM)
(5 of 7) [CW-13906/2020]
This Court has, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1457/2021;
Jahida Salma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected
matters, vide its order dated 10.02.2022 held as under:
"There is another important aspect of the matter. The
qualification provided for appointment on the post of Female
Health Worker under the Rajasthan Medical & Health
Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for brevity "the Rules of
1965"), is as under:
"Xth standard with Auxiliary Nurse
Midwifery/Health Worker Female Course
passed and registered in Rajasthan Nursing
Council as B Grade Nurse."
It nowhere provides that Xth standard must be passed
from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer or
should be an equivalent qualification so declared by the
Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, in absence whereof,
the question of recognition/equivalence, perhaps, does not
arise.
Learned counsels for the respondents could not satisfy
this Court as to requirement of recognition/equivalence by
the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer in
absence of any such stipulation in the Rules of 1965. Of
course, the Board from which a candidate has passed X th
standard must be valid one, a situation obtaining in the
present case."
This Court has gone through the order dated 26.9.2017
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh in case of Board
of School and Technical Education (supra) and does not find any
observation that the aforesaid Board is a fake Board. The
withdrawal of recognition granted by the Chattisgarh Board of
(Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:57:21 PM)
(6 of 7) [CW-13906/2020]
Secondary Education was upheld on the premise that the
recognition was granted by the incompetent authority.
In compliance of direction of this Court dated 9.3.2022, Shri
Naveen Sanghi, the Registrar, Rajasthan Pharmacy Council has
submitted his affidavit dated 10.3.2022 wherein it has been stated
that eight candidates who have passed out their senior secondary
examination from the BSTE were registered as Pharmacist in the
year 2016 and 2017. The affidavit further reveals that in February,
2020 also, as many as eight persons who have passed out their
senior secondary examination from the BSTE and diploma in
Pharmacy from OPJS University, Churu, have been registered as
Pharmacist albeit under an interim direction of a Division Bench of
this Court which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 fairly admits that in the pending
litigation, no dispute has been raised as to ineligibility of the
candidates, who have already been registered as Pharmacists, qua
their senior secondary examination from the BSTE. In view
thereof, the petitioner cannot be permitted to be put to hostile
discrimination by the respondent no.2.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, no issue of equivalence is
found to be involved in the present case. Therefore, the
judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent
no.2 have no applicability in the present case.
In the backdrop of minimum qualification prescribed under the Regulations-1991, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to issue Pharmacist registration certificate to the (Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:57:21 PM) (7 of 7) [CW-13906/2020] petitioner within a period of a week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J RS/161 (Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:57:21 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)