Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. As counselling was due Supreme Court required this court to decide the matter on the date it is listed. Therefore, on 21.10.2020 the present bunch of petitions was heard and operative portion was pronounced in court providing that reasons shall follow, hence present detailed judgment.

2. I have heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned Advocate assisted by Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for petitioners in leading case, Sri Rajat Rajan Singh, Sri Dharm Raj Mishra, Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsels for petitioners in connected cases, learned standing counsel for State of UP, Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University and Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel for Pharmacy Council of India (PCI).

3. Petitioner pharmacy colleges have approached this Court against the recommendation/decision dated 15.05.2020 of the Review Affiliation Committee of the State of UP refusing No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioner institutions for recognition of additional course of Bachelor in Pharmacy. The review committee consists of senior officers of State of UP and of the affiliating university. The said decision of the Review Affiliation Committee is later approved by the State Government. Petitioners are pharmacy colleges who were granted approval for running diploma courses in Pharmacy for academic year 2019-20 by the PCI. In its 106th Central Council meeting held on 9th and 10th April, 2019, PCI resolved to put a moratorium on the opening of a new pharmacy colleges for running diploma as well as degree course in pharmacy for a period of five years, beginning from the academic year 2020-21. The said decision was duly circulated to all the concerned by a communication dated 17.07.2019. In its 107th Central Council meeting held on 5th and 6th August, 2019, PCI carved out certain exceptions to the said policy. The same were also circulated by PCI through its communication dated 09.09.2019. Relevant exception for our purposes is "(e) Existing approved pharmacy institutions will be allowed to apply for increase in intake capacity as per P.C.I. norms and/or to start additional pharmacy courses." Petitioners, who were already running Diploma courses under approval of PCI, applied for approval of Bachelor of Pharmacy course from the academic year 2020-21, which was also granted by PCI, it being subject to consent of Affiliation of Examining Authority and No Objection Certificate and approval of the State Government. The State Review Committee rejected the proposals of the petitioners by the impugned decision dated 15.05.2020 on the ground that colleges in surplus of present requirement are being run in the State and new colleges should be permitted only in districts which do not have such Colleges or where admission of students is in excess of 80% of the capacity.

8. So far as the status of PCI is concerned, in the case of The Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Ors. Etc.3, the issue, whether PCI or AICTE shall be the apex body in the field of pharmacy education, came up before supreme court. Supreme Court after detailed consideration both the Acts concerned, in paragraph 87 concluded:
"87. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is held that in the field of Pharmacy Education and more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of Pharmacy Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail. The norms and regulations set by the PCI and other specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act would have to be followed by the concerned institutions imparting education for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy, including the norms and regulations with respect to increase and/or decrease in intake capacity of the students and the decisions of the PCI shall only be followed by the institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy. The questions are answered accordingly. "

9. Nothing displacing the aforesaid judgments has been placed by the respondents before this court. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, there is no dispute that PCI is the final authority for Pharmacy education whose decisions are to be followed by all concerned. Once PCI had taken a policy decision with regard to norms for opening new pharmacy institutions or permission for new pharmacy courses in the existing approved pharmacy institutions, it was beyond the ambit of the State Government or any of its committees to take a stand at variance with that of PCI. The State Government and all other concerned are bound to follow the policy of PCI.