Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shekhawati Institute Of Pharmacy vs State Of Raj And Ors on 16 July, 2018
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 9723/2018
Shekhawati Institute Of Pharmacy Runned By Gurukul Shikshan
Sansthan Trust Through Chairman Ranjeet , Behind Circuit
House, Jaipur Road, Sikar, District Sikar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical Education Department , Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Pharmacy Council Of India, Combined Councils Building ,
Kotla Road, Aiwan- E- Ghalib Marg, New Delhi Through Its
Secretary.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur Through
Its Registrar , Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar,
Tonk Road, Jaipur.
4. Convenor, Pharmacy Entrance Examination, Rajasthan
University Of Health Sciences- 2018 , Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Counsel with
Mr. Bhrigu Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuradha Upadhya for Pharmacy
Council.
Mr. Dinesh Yadav with Mr. Naveen
Verma for RUHS.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
16/07/2018
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your
Lordships may pleased to accept and allow this Writ
Petition and by an appropriate writ, order or
directions:-
(i) the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 passed by
the Respondent-2 - Pharmacy Council of India may
kindly be quashed and set aside. It is further prayed
that the Respondent PCI may be directed to conduct
inspection and issue approval to the Petitioner
Institute for establishment of new pharmacy college
(2 of 7) [CW-9723/2018]
for the Bachelor of Pharmacy and Deploma in
Pharmacy course for the academic year 2018-2019.
(ii) the impugned order dated 12.04.2018 passed by
the respondent no.3 - Rajasthan University of Health
Sciences may kindly be quashed and set aside. It is
further prayed that the Respondent RUHS may be
directed to conduct inspection and issue affiliation to
the Petitioner Institute for establishment of new
pharmacy college for the Bachelor of Pharmacy and
Diploma in Pharmacy course for the academic year
2018-19.
(iii) the respondent no.1 may be directed to issue
the No- Objection Certificate to the Petition Institute
for establishment of new Pharmacy college for the
Bachelor of Pharmacy and Diploma in Pharmacy
course as per the Letter of Intent dated 28.03.2018
(Annexure-3);
(iv) the respondent no.4 may be directed to allow
the petitioner institution to participate in counseling
for admissions to Bachelor of Pharmacy and Diploma
in Pharmacy course for the academic year 2018-2019
subject to intake capacity and due procedure.
(v) any other order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper may also be passed in
the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of
the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the All India Council of Technical Education (hereinafter to be referred as "AICTE") has granted approval for staring/running the Diploma in Pharmacy & under Graduate course in Pharmacy vide order dated 30.04.2018. Counsel further submits that the State Government has also issued NOC for the said course vide order dated 31.05.2018. Counsel further submits that despite grant of approval by the AICTE, the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter to be referred as "PCI") has dismissed their application for approval vide letter dated 26.03.2018 on the ground of delay in submitting the application and the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (hereinafter to be referred as "RUHS) has also rejected their application for affiliation on 12.04.2018. Counsel further submits that once the AICTE has (3 of 7) [CW-9723/2018] granted approval, the PCI has no right to reject their application for approval and the refusal to grant affiliation by RUHS on the ground of non-grant of approval by PCI, is also not sustainable.
3. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indira Bahuuddeshiya Shik Sanstha & another Vs. Pharmacy Council of India & Others (Writ Petition (Civil) No.372/2014, which reads as under:-
"We are informed that the Centralized Admission Process has been started.
Issue notice on the application.
In the meanwhile, we direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to admit the students through the Centralized Admission Process rounds to the course of Diploma in Pharmacy which is to be conducted in the 2nd Shift.
We make it clear that admission granted to the students shall be provisional.
We also make it clear that no equity shall be created in favour of the students by virtue of grant of such provisional admission which is liable to be cancelled. We also make it clear that while granting admission to the students, the petitioners will clearly inform the students in writing their admission is subject to the outcome of this petition so that the students are put to notice.
Since the issue raised in this application is a recurring issue, we are of the opinion that the matter should be heard expeditiously.
List the matter on a non-miscellaneous day within four weeks.
Pleadings must be completed by that time."
4. Lastly, learned senior counsel submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the PCI dated 26.03.2018 as well as the order passed by the RUHS dated 12.04.2018 be quashed and set aside.
5. Counsel for the respondent-RUHS submitted that the NOC was not granted by the State Government in favour of the (4 of 7) [CW-9723/2018] petitioner-Institution, however, later on NOC was issued by the State Government whereas the approval has not been granted by the PCI in favour of the petitioner-institution and on that basis, the RUHS has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner.
6. Counsel for PCI made emphasis on para no.2 of their preliminary objections, which reads as under:-
"The fact of the case as per records is that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India common judgment dated 13.12.2012 in Civil Appeal No. 9048 of 2012 (arising out of SLP© No. 26086 of 2012) - Parshvanath Charitable Trust & Ors. v/s AICTE & Ors. and Civil Appeal No. 9047 of 2012 (arising out of SLP© N0. 27021 of 2012 @ CC No. 15845 of 2012) Chetan Pathare & Anr. v/s AICTE & Ors. has declared a time schedule for grant of approval and completion of admission process. That purusant to the aforementioned judgment the answering respondent PCI has framed its Time Schedule for starting of new Pharmacy Course and for existing institution already approved. As per the Time Schedule fixed by the answering respondent PCI every college in the country who intends to start Pharmacy Course needs to send their proposal before 31st August of the previous year (for example, if the approval is sought from 2018-2019 academic session application shall be submitted between 1st to 31st August, 2017)."
7. Counsel for the PCI submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they framed a calendar for grant of approval to new institutions. The said calendar provided by the counsel for the respondent-PCI is taken on record and reproduced as under:-
S.No. Stage of Processing Last Date
1. Receipt of applications by the PCI from - From 1st to 31st August (both days
a) new institutions applying for the first inclusive) of the previous year i.e.
time. if the course is to be started from
2019-2020 academic session,
(5 of 7) [CW-9723/2018]
b) Already approved institutions applying application shall be submitted for the introduction of new pharmacy between 1st August, 2018 to 31st course(s). August, 2018
c) institutions which are already approved for -
• conduct of course.
• u/s 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
d) institutions applying for raise in admissions.
Announcement of the list of applications On or before 25th September.
2. received within the prescribed Time Schedule with regard to the above categories of institutions on the Council's website.
3. Representation by institutions with regard to On or before 2nd October. any missing name in the website list or any other corrections with regard to the name etc. on website.
4. Inspection of Pharmacy institutions with To be Completed by 31st January regard to -
a) new institutions applying for the first time.
b) Already approved institutions applying for the introduction of new pharmacy course(s).
c) institutions which are already approved for-
• conduct of course.
• U/s 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948.
d) institutions applying for raise in admissions.
5. Last date of granting approval/rejecting 10th April application by the PCI.
6. Last date of representation if any by an Within 5 days of uploading of the institution on Council's decision decision on Council's decision.
7. Last date of granting approval/rejecting 30th April proposal by the PCI in cases where representations have been made by the institutions against the decision of rejection or otherwise.
8. Counsel for respondent no.2 further submits that the petitioner-Institution is a new Institution and it has to submit the application seeking approval before 31.08.2017, according to the (6 of 7) [CW-9723/2018] Calendar fixed by the PCI for grant of approval for starting of new course for the session 2018-19, whereas the petitioner-institution has admittedly submitted the application for approval only on 08.02.2018 and that being not within time, hence was rejected by the PCI vide order dated 26.03.2018.
9. In support of her contentions counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Dental Council of India vs. Dr. Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal, Hingoli and Ors., reported in 2017(13) SCC 115 has held in para-22 as under:-
"From the aforesaid authorities, it is perspicuous that the court should not pass such interim orders in the matters of admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded approval. Such kind of interim orders are likely to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty. And, there is no reason for creating such situations. There is no justification or requirement. The High Court may feel that while exercising power Under Article 226 of the Constitution, it can pass such orders with certain qualifiers as has been done by the impugned order, but it really does not save the situation. It is because an institution which has not been given approval for the course, gets a premium. That apart, by virtue of interim order, the court grants approval in a way which is the subject matter of final adjudication before it. The anxiety of the students to get admission reigns supreme as they feel that the institution is granting admission on the basis of an order passed by the High Court. The institution might be directed to inform the students that the matter is sub judice, but the career oriented students get into the college with the hope and aspiration that in the ultimate eventuate everything shall be correct for them and they will be saved. It can be thought of from another perspective, that is, the students had deliberately got into such a situation. But it is seemly to note that it is the institution that had approached the High Court and sought a relief of the present nature. By saying that the institution may give admission at its own risk invites further chaotic and unfortunate situations."
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(7 of 7) [CW-9723/2018]
11. The first argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding no need of formal approval by the PCI is not acceptable in view of the fact that the approval by the PCI is necessary to run the Pharmacy courses. The second argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner regarding wrongful rejection of the approval application submitted by the petitioner is also not acceptable because admittedly the petitioner has submitted the approval application to the PCI for starting of new course of Diploma Pharmacy & under Graduate course in Pharmacy after the cut off date i.e. 31.08.2017.
12. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner-institution failed to submit the approval applications to the PCI before the last date of submitting the application i.e. 31.08.2017; secondly, the petitioner-institution has not challenged the calendar issued by the PCI with regard to grant of approval for new courses; thirdly, approval of the PCI is mandatory to run the Pharmacy course; fourthly, I am not inclined to exercise the extra discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner-institution in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dental Council of India (supra).
13. In that view of the matter, the writ petition as well as 2 nd Stay application filed by the petitioner stand dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/90 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)