Prakash Mahavidyalaya, Etah Thru. Mgr., Rakesh Kumar Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko and 2Others

Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11313 of 2024 Petitioner :- Prakash Mahavidyalaya, Etah Thru. Mgr., Rakesh Kumar Bhardwaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lko And 2others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K. Singh Chauhan,Ravi Singh Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for parties.

¶2On 16.12.2024, the following order had been passed in Writ C No.10787 of 2024 :- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2, Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 i.e. the Pharmacy Council of India, and Mr. D.K. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for opposite party No.4. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 28th November, 2024, 30th November, 2024 and 06th December, 2024 pertaining to rejection of petitioner institutes' application for the D.Pharma course for the academic session 2024-25 on the ground that it refused to permit inspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the impugned order itself which indicates the date of meeting of the executive council of the Pharmacy Council of India as 07th November, 2024. He has thereafter adverted to the minutes of meeting held on 07th November, 2024, particularly paragraph 10.2 (c) thereof, whereby has been indicated that inspection was taking time and around 346 institutions were yet to be inspected as on that date. He has thereafter drawn attention to the list appended to the resolution indicating name of petitioner institution with PCI No.6242 for the D.Pharma course as one of the institutes for which the inspection was yet pending. He has also drawn attention to the institute inspection report indicating that inspection of the institute in fact was completed between 24th November, 2024 to 27th November, 2024. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to direction issued by Supreme Court dated 19th November, 2024 passed in proceedings arising out of C.A. 9048 of 2012, Parshavanath Charitable Trust and another vs. All India Council for Technical Education and others, whereby directions have been issued to the Pharmacy Council of India to decide cases where inspection has already been conducted, prior to cut off date so that institute can avail itself of an appellate remedy and further for direction to conduct inspections and make a decision before the cut off date where inspection has already been conducted.

He has also adverted to direction issued by this Court on 25th November, 2024 passed in Writ-C No.10134/2024 instituted by the petitioner which was disposed of in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court.

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions, learned counsel for Pharmacy Council of India is granted a days' time to seek instructions on the aforesaid aspect, particularly, the contradiction regarding inspection of premises of the institutes and non-adherence to direction issued by Supreme Court to the Pharmacy Council of India and remedial action that can now be taken.

Put up tomorrow i.e. on 17th December, 2024 as fresh"

¶3In pursuance of directions issued earlier, Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for PCI has been provided written instructions, a copy of which is taken on record.

¶4A perusal of aforesaid instructions indicate admission by PCI that the order rejecting petitioner's approval was communicated on 10.12.2024 although the order rejecting such approval was passed on 07.11.2024. Various reasons and difÏculties have been indicated in the written instructions as to why the rejection order could not be communicated within a reasonable time period in order to enable petitioner to avail itself of the alternative remedy of filing appeal which could be decided before the last date fixed by Hon'ble supreme Court as 10.12.2024.

¶5It has also been submitted by learned counsel for PCI that various dates were fixed for inspection of premises of petitioner's institute, which could not take place since one of the instructors nominated by the Board of Technical Education refused to participate in inspection. It is submitted that subsequently upon passing of directions by this Court, an inspection was sought to be carried out but was refused by institute itself; a fact which is denied by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶6Nonetheless the fact still remains that petitioner's application for approval was rejected by PCI on 07.11.2024 and communication of the said rejection order was made only on 10.12.2024, which was last date fixed for decision on appeal. It is admitted between the parties that after approval is granted by PCI, an institute is required to seek afÏliation by the Board of Technical Education whereafter only the institute can participate in the counselling process.

¶7It is also admitted that last date fixed for grant of afÏliation was also 14.12.2024, which has also in the meantime expired.

¶8Learned counsel have adverted to order dated

13.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshavanath Charitable Trust and another versus All India Council for Technical Eduation and others, Misc. Application bearing Diary No. 55173 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 9048 of 2012 to submit that even after expiry of the last date fixed for purposes of approval by PCI, a letter dated 13.12.2024 issued by PCI praying for permission to convey right decision and rectify and erroneous decision was filed whereafter appropriate directions were also issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such a direction issued by Hon'ble Surpeme Court is as follows:- "1. Learned counsel for the Pharmacy Council of India has placed a letter dated 13.12.2024 praying for permission of this court to convey the right decision and rectify an erroneous decision, which was taken earlier.

¶2Permission is granted.

¶3Needless to state that the permission granted by the Pharmacy Council of India shall relate back to the date on which the earlier incorrect order was passed.

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

¶5These applications are accordingly disposed of.

¶6Pending applications(s), including application for intervention/implementation, shall stand disposed of."

¶9From the aforesaid order, it appears that PCI admitted before Hon'ble Supreme Court that certain erroneous decisions had been taken and a right to rectify such decisions have been sought, which was granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was also indicated in the order that in case such a rectified order is passed, it would relate back to the date on which earlier incorrect order was passed.

¶10From the order, however, it is not discernible as to whether the letter dated 13.12.2024 was pertaining to only a single institute or was generally applicable. Learned counsel for PCI also does not have any instructions on that aspect.

¶11However, in view of written instructions provided to learned counsel for PCI, as well as the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13.12.2024, liberty is granted to PCI to re-visit the case of petitioner's institution with regard to grant of approval or otherwise for the Academic Session 2024-25 for conduct of D-Pharma Course in case petitioner's institution would be covered by order dated 13.12.20254 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶12Consequential action may be taken by PCI, accordingly.

¶13In consequence thereto, petitioner's institute would also be at liberty to seek consequential relief as granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 13.12.2024.

¶14With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 20.12.2024 mks High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench