VIIT PHARMACY COLLEGE AND ANOTHER versus DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER on 15 April 2021

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 4 S.C.R.

AVIIT PHARMACY COLLEGE AND ANOTHER

v.

DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY ANDANOTHER

(Writ Petition (C) No.390 of 2021)

B

APRIL 15, 2021

[R.F. NARIMAN, B.R. GAVAI AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions: Pharmacy college –Respondent no.1-University invited applications for grant ofCaffiliation for the year 2020-2021 –Petitioners were grantedapproval by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for conductingfirst year B.Pharma course for the academic year 2020-2021 – Inthe meantime, State Government came up with policy dated15.05.2020 for restricting the number of colleges to only two perDdistrict – The said policy was challenged in bunch of petitions –High Court had set aside the policy only insofar as petitioners whohad approached High Court – Since respondent no.1-Universityrefused to grant affiliation to the petitioners and refused to permittheir students to appear before the first year B.Pharma examination,the petitioners approached this Court seeking direction to respondentEno.1-University to grant affiliation for B.Pharma course to thepetitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-2021 with furtherdirection to organize special examinations for B.Pharma studentsfor academic year 2020-2021 in view of notification dated19.03.2021 – Held: Indisputably, in the instant case, the PCI hadFgranted approval to the petitioners by order dated 10.04.2020, withintake capacity of 100 and 60 admissions/students respectively –Not only that, the petitions filed by the petitioners challenging thepolicy decision of the State Government dated 15.05.2020, wereallowed by the High Court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2020– Indisputably, the State Government also by notification datedG19.03.2021, had granted conditional affiliation after consideringthe recommendations made by the Affiliation Committee – In thepeculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, sincethe averments made on affidavit by the petitioners, were notcontroverted by respondent No.1-University, petition is allowed –Respondent No.1-University is directed to grant affiliation to theH

VIIT PHARMACY COLLEGE AND ANOTHER v. DR. A.P.J. ABDULKALAM TECHNIC AL UNIVERSITY

petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21 and also permitthe students of the petitioner colleges to participate in the specialexaminations to be organized by respondent No.1-University forthe academic year 2020-21 in view of the notification dated19.03.2021.

Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. ToshiwalEducational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy andOthers Etc. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 296 – relied on Case Law Reference 2020 SCC OnLine SC 296relied onPara 3

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 390

of 2021.

(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)

Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ajit Sharma, Anant Ram Mishra,Abhishek Rana, Sushil Singh, Advs. for the Petitioners.

Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Binisa Mohanty, Ms. Priti Kumari, MritunjayKumar Sinha, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was passed by

B. R. GAVAI, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction tothe respondent No.1-Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University(hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) to grant affiliation for B.Pharma course to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21with further direction to respondent No.1-University to organize specialexaminations for B. Pharma students for academic year 2020-21 in viewof the notification dated 19[th] March 2021.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the petition are as under:-

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the petition are as under:- On 28[th] January 2020, the respondent No.1-University invitedapplications for grant of affiliation for the year 2020-21. In responsethereto, the petitioners submitted applications in the month of February2020 seeking affiliation for B. Pharma course for the year 2020-21. It ispertinent to note that the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter referredto as the ‘PCI’) granted its approval to the petitioner No.1-VIITPharmacy College vide order dated 10[th] April 2020 for conduct of first

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ayear B. Pharma course for the academic year 2020-21 with intakecapacity of 100 admissions/students. Insofar as the petitioner No.2-RVInstitute of Pharmacy is concerned, a similar approval was also granted;however with the intake capacity of 60 admissions/students. The samewas subject to submission of consent of affiliation of Examining Authorityand NOC of the State Government.B

3. In the meantime, the respondent No.2-State of Uttar Pradeshcame up with the policy dated 15[th] May 2020 for restricting the numberof pharmacy colleges to only two per district. The said policy came to bechallenged before the High Court of Allahabad in bunch of petitionsbeing Misc. Single No. 12536 of 2020 filed by Zee College of PharmacyCwith companion matters. The Allahabad High Court vide judgment andorder dated 2[nd] November 2020, relying on the judgment of this Court inthe case of Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. ToshiwalEducational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and OthersEtc.[1]set aside the policy dated 15[th] May 2020, only insofar as theDpetitioners who had approached the High Court. The petitioner institutionstherein were permitted to participate in the counselling being conductedfor admission to Bachelors of Pharmacy course for the academic year2020-21.

4. The petitioner No.1, relying on the order of the High CourtEdated 2[nd] November 2020, also filed writ petition being Misc. Single No.19510 of 2020 before the Allahabad High Court. The said petition wasalso allowed and the policy dated 15[th] May 2020 was set aside withrespect to the petitioner therein and the respondents were directed totake a decision on the application of the petitioner for affiliation inaccordance with law. A similar petition being Misc. Single No. 19509 ofF2020 came to be filed by petitioner No.2 which too was allowed on liketerms. Likewise, one S.D. College of Sciences had also filed a writpetition being Misc. Single No. 19568 of 2020 which was similarlyallowed. All the above three petitions were allowed by the High Courtvide order dated 9[th] November 2020.G5. However, the respondent No.1-University vide impugned orderdated 7[th] December 2020, rejected the application of S.D. College ofSciences for grant of affiliation. The present petitioners along with oneanother institution thereafter filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1468 of 2020

1 2020 SCC OnLine SC 296H

before this Court in the month of December 2020. This Court vide orderdated 12[th] January 2021 stayed the operation of the order dated 7[th]December 2020 passed by respondent No.1-University and tagged thesaid petition along with Writ Petition (C) No. 1430 of 2020 filed byRakshpal Bahadur Pharmacy Institute.

6. It is the contention of the petitioners, that in March 2021 thoughthe students of the petitioner colleges were invited to the examinationcentre, they were not permitted to participate in the exam at the lastmoment. It is also the contention of the petitioners, that in view of theorder dated 5[th] March 2021, passed by this Court in I.A. No.33272 of2021 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1433 of 2020, students of one Zee Collegeof Pharmacy were permitted to participate in the examination.

7. In the meantime, vide order dated 19[th] March 2021, the StateGovernment, after considering the recommendations made by theAffiliation Committee, has granted conditional affiliation for admissionin B. Pharma course, in compliance of the order of the High Court passedin Writ Petition (C) No. 12536 of 2020.

8. Since the respondent No.1-University refused to grant affiliationto the petitioners and has refused to permit their students to appear forthe first year B. Pharma examination, the petitioners have approachedthis Court.

9. This Court, in the case of, Dr. S.K. Toshiwal EducationalTrusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy (supra), has held as under:- “87. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, itis held that in the field of Pharmacy Education and moreparticularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomasof Pharmacy Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948shall prevail. The norms and regulations set by the PCI andother specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act wouldhave to be followed by the concerned institutions impartingeducation for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy, includingthe norms and regulations with respect to increase and/ordecrease in intake capacity of the students and the decisionsof the PCI shall only be followed by the institutions impartingdegrees and diplomas in Pharmacy. The questions areanswered accordingly.”

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A10. Indisputably, in the present case, the PCI has granted approvalto both the petitioners vide order dated 10[th] April 2020, with intakecapacity of 100 and 60 admissions/students respectively. Not only that,the petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the policy decision of theState Government dated 15[th] May 2020, have been allowed by the HighCourt vide judgment and order dated 9[th] November 2020. Indisputably,Bthe State Government also vide notification dated 19[th] March 2021, hasgranted conditional affiliation after considering the recommendationsmade by the Affiliation Committee. In the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case and particularly, taking into consideration,that the averments made on affidavit by the petitioners, are notCcontroverted by the respondent No.1-University, we find that the petitiondeserves to be allowed.

11. The respondent No.1-University is therefore directed to grantaffiliation to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21 andalso permit the students of the petitioner colleges to participate in theDspecial examinations to be organized by the respondent No.1-Universityfor the academic year 2020-21 in view of the notification dated 19[th]March 2021.

12. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

E

Devika Gujral

Petition allowed.

F

G

H