WRIC/11473/2024 of MAA SHRINGARI DEVI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AZAMGARH THRU. MANAGER BIBHAV KUMAR YADAV AND 6 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 27 December 2024

1. The matter has been taken up during thevacations on an application for urgency havingbeen made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel forthe petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned AdditionalChief Standing counsel for State - respondent No.s1 and 2, Sri Ravi Singh for respondent No.3-Pharmacy Council of India and Sri D. K. SinghChauhan for respondent No.4-Joint EntranceExamination Council (Polytechnic), Uttar PradeshGuru Gobind Singh Marg, Lucknow.

3. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated6th December, 2024, 9th December, 2024 and10th December, 2024 pertaining to rejection ofpetitioner institutes' application for the D. Pharmacourse for the academic session 2024-25 bymeans of which the approval of the petitioners'institutes have been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawnattention to the impugned order itself whichindicates the date of meeting of the executivecouncil of the Pharmacy Council of India as 07thNovember, 2024. He has thereafter adverted tothe minutes of meeting held on 07th November,2024, particularly paragraph 10.2 (c) thereof,whereby has been indicated that inspection wastaking time and around 346 institutions were yetto be inspected as on that date. He has thereafterdrawn attention to the list appended to theresolution indicating name of petitioner institutionfor the D.Pharma course as one of the institutes for which the inspection was yet pending. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner has also drawn attentionto the direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Courtdated 19th November, 2024 passed in proceedingsarising out of C.A. 9048 of 2012, ParshavanathCharitable Trust and another vs. All India Councilfor Technical Education and others, wherebydirections have been issued to the PharmacyCouncil of India to decide cases where inspectionhas already been conducted prior to cut off dateso that institute can avail itself of an appellateremedy and further for direction to conductinspections and make a decision before the cut offdate where inspection has already beenconducted.

5. Sri Ravi Singh, learned counsel appearing forPharmacy Council of India (PCI) does not disputethis fact that in the identical cases, protection hasalready been given to the similarly situatedpetitioners. It has further stated that there wassome delay in communication of the rejectionorder.

6. A perusal of aforesaid facts and circumstancesmakes it clear that the order rejecting petitioner'sapproval was communicated on 9/10.12.2024although the order rejecting such approval waspassed on 07.11.2024. Various reasons anddifÏculties have been indicated during thearguments as to why the rejection order could notbe communicated within a reasonable time periodin order to enable petitioner to avail itself of thealternative remedy of filing appeal which could bedecided before the last date fixed by Hon'blesupreme Court as 10.12.2024.

7. Nonetheless the fact still remains thatpetitioner's application for approval was rejectedby PCI on 07.11.2024 and communication of thesaid rejection order was made only on9/10.12.2024, which was last date fixed fordecision on appeal. It is admitted between theparties that after approval is granted by PCI, aninstitute is required to seek afÏliation by the Boardof Technical Education whereafter only theinstitute can participate in the counselling process.

8. It is also admitted that last date fixed for grantof afÏliation was also 14.12.2024, which has alsoin the meantime expired.

9. Learned counsel have adverted to order dated13.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust andanother versus All India Council for TechnicalEducation and others, Misc. Applicationbearing Diary No. 55173 of 2024 in CivilAppeal No. 9048 of 2012 to submit that evenafter expiry of the last date fixed for purposes ofapproval by PCI, a letter dated 13.12.2024 issuedby PCI praying for permission to convey rightdecision and rectify and erroneous decision wasfiled whereafter appropriate directions were alsoissued by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such a directionissued by Hon'ble Supreme Court is as follows:- "1. Learned counsel for the Pharmacy Council of India has placed aletter dated 13.12.2024 praying for permission of this court to conveythe right decision and rectify an erroneous decision, which was takenearlier.

2. Permission is granted.

3. Needless to state that the permission granted by the PharmacyCouncil of India shall relate back to the date on which the earlierincorrect order was passed.

4. Insofar as the direction to the State Government to permit theapplicant(s) to admit the students concerned after the cut off date isconcerned, we direct the applicant(s) to make a representation to theState Government, which would be considered on its own merits, inaccordance with law.

5. These applications are accordingly disposed of.

6. Pendingapplications(s),includingapplicationforintervention/implementation, shall stand disposed of."

10. It has further been pointed out that the matterwas listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on20.12.2024 where fresh decision taken by the PCIwas informed to the Court and it was submitted bythem that they have considered and rectified thedecision of all the applicant's colleges except fewand further sought permission to rectify andreview decision on the applicant's colleges therein.The Hon'ble Supreme Court considering therequest made by the PCI permitted them to grantpermission in respect to other colleges wherever ithas taken a decision to review and rectify earlier order

11. From the aforesaid order, it appears that PCIadmitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court thatcertain erroneous decisions had been taken and aright to rectify such decisions have been sought,which was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Itwas also indicated in the order that in case such arectified order is passed, it would relate back tothe date on which earlier incorrect order waspassed.

12. From the order, however, it is not discernibleas to whether the letter dated 13.12.2024 waspertaining to only a single institute or wasgenerally applicable. Learned counsel for PCI alsodoes not have any instructions on that aspect.

13. However, in view of the arguments of learnedcounsel for PCI, as well as the order passed byHon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.12.2024 and20.12.2024, liberty is granted to PCI to re-visit thecase of petitioner's institution with regard to grantof approval or otherwise for the Academic Session2024-25 for conduct of D-Pharma Course in casepetitioner's institution would be covered by orderdated 13.12.2024 and 20.12.2024 passed byHon'ble Supreme Court.

14. Consequential action may be taken by PCI, inaccordance with law.

15. In consequence thereto, petitioner's institutewould also be at liberty to seek consequentialrelief as granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in theorder dated 13.12.2024 & 20.12.2024.

16. With the aforesaid directions, petition standsdisposed of.

Order Date :- 27.12.2024Gaurav/-