AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.
PART-1 : PRELUDE
SHOCKING CONDUCT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
& OMISSIONS OF AUTHORITIES
FACTS LEADING TO THE WRIT PETITIONS :
This batch of writ petitions palpably demonstrates the wasteful years spent by few hundred students in
i) Fathima College of Pharmacy, Kadayanallur ;
ii) The Pearl Peace Medical Mission College & Pharmacy, Tirunelveli ;
and the huge expenditure incurred by their parents out of their hard earned money with the object of settling the career of their respective
son/daughter. Neither the wasteful years, which the students have spent in these two colleges could be saved by putting the clock back nor the
parents could save themselves from the financial burden they have so far borne and further to be borne. Such a situation has been caused by the
following circumstances :
i) The two colleges for years together have for obvious reasons concealed and suppressed their failure to secure approval/permission of All India
Council of Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India ;
ii) Dr.M.G.R. Medical University acted with callous indifference in granting affiliation in favour of these two colleges without there being any
permission or approval by The All India Council of Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India ;
iii) The State Government and the Selection Committee have included the colleges in the list of validly established institutions, allotted and admitted
students under single window system in the said two colleges for few years without any attempt to verify ;
iv) All India Council for Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India have turned their nelson''s eye and sat in ivory towers by ignoring
the establishment of two colleges without their permission and allowing the said two colleges to run the courses for years together without taking
any action, despite intimation as to grant of affiliation by the University ;
v) Dr. M.G.R. Medical University has granted affiliation ignoring the provisions of AICTE Act and the Pharmacy Act and granted affiliation to the
said two colleges without permission or approval of the said two bodies and without even infrastructure as has been reported by the inspection
committee and the University has granted affiliation while imposing certain conditions and one of the condition being getting approval of All India
Council of Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India and this is nothing but putting the horse behind the cart.
As a result, all the students who have undergone the course and even passed the examination conducted by the University are disabled from
registering themselves with the Pharmacy Council of India as they have acquired degree in Pharmaceutical Science by undergoing course in the
said two unapproved institutions and lost their valuable part of their life, besides it has frustrated the students and their career and also defeated the
hopes of their parents.
Though the situation is pathetic and it has to be considered with compassion, but there is neither equity nor there is any just reason for the Court
to exercise its powers in favour of the petitioners as compassion or sympathy will result in violation of mandatory provision of law, which is
impermissible as laid down by the Supreme Court in various pronouncements. The above scenario is shocking and even after settlement of legal
principles, the two college authorities, academicians employed in the college, University, State, the Selection Committee, the All India Council of
Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India have contributed either deliberately or knowingly or by inaction resulting in deprivation of
valuable part of life for the younger generation. It is clear that these two institutions are nothing but ""educational shops"" and they are to be closed
down forthwith by orders of this Court till they secure approval of the AICTE and Pharmacy Council and fresh affiliation from the University.
Six petitioners have joined together and filed w.P.No.37141 of 2002 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1
and 2 to transfer the petitioners to any other approved college of Pharmacy in the State of Tamil Nadu to enable them to continue their first year
B-Pharm course and complete the same so as to facilitate them to register them as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Council of India after
completion of the course.
W.P.No.8231 of 2002 has been filed by 14 writ petitioners praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing
the respondents 1 to 4 herein to transfer the petitioners to any other approved college in the State of Tamil Nadu and enable them to continue third
year B Pharmacy course, complete the same to facilitate the petitioners to register as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Council of India after
successful completion of the course.
Writ Petition No.7667 of 2002 is moved by the 17 petitioners for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 herein to
transfer the petitioners to any other approved college in the State of Tamil Nadu and enable them to continue their 4th year B Pharmacy course,
complete the same to facilitate the petitioners to register as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Council of India after successful completion of the
course.
Fifty petitioners have joined together and filed W.P.No:8866 of 2002 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
transfer all the petitioners to any one of the approved college of B-Pharm in the State of Tamil Nadu approved by the second respondent and
registered with the third respondent to complete their B Pharmacy course, so as to facilitate the petitioners to register as Pharmacist under the
Pharmacy Council of India after successful completion of the course.
S.J.Anitha and fifteen others have joined together and filed W.P.No.10305 of 2002 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 4 to transfer the petitioners to any other approved approved college of pharmacy in the State of Tamil Nadu so as to enable the
petitioners to continue their second year B-Pharm course and successfully complete the course for registration as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy
Council of India.
W.P. No. 13945 of 2002 has been filed by the unemployed Pharmacists Association represented by its coordinator A.Pazhanivelswamy for the
issue of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to grant permission to the fifth respondent on complying with the rules and regulations of
the Pharmacy Act 1948 and further directing the first respondent to obtain recognition for the 5th respondent college from the first respondent
retrospectively from the academic year 1993-94 to update on or before the end of the month of May, 2002.
In this batch of writ petitions, the factual matrix being identical, at the joint request of the counsel for the writ petitioners as well as the
respondents, the above six writ petitions were consolidated and taken up for final disposal. Factually there is no controversy and the facts which
are common could be set out conveniently while discussing the only point:
Whether the petitioners are entitled for a direction to transfer them from the two unapproved colleges to other approved colleges?
III. Factual position :
Concedingly, Fathima College of Pharmacy, located at Krishnapuram, Kadayanallur, Thenkasi Taluk, Tirunelveli District and the Pearl Peace
Medical Mission College of Pharmacy, located at M.D.T.Hindu College Campus, Pettai, Tirunelveli District, are the two colleges in which the
petitioners in all these writ petitions and hundred others were admitted to B-Pharm course during the last few years as if the establishment of the
said two institutions have been validly approved by the All India Council for Technical Education and the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi.
Factually both the institutions though they have applied to the said two authorities for permission/approval intermittently to establish a college of
pharmacy, till date the two colleges have miserably failed to secure the required permission/approval of the said two central council.
In other words, without securing the permission/approval of All India Council for Technical Education, (hereinafter referred as AICTE), as well
as Pharmacy Council of India, the said two colleges have established their respective college, admitted students through single window and
conducted the course and in fact one or more batches of students have already left the college.
The fact that the said two institutions did not have the approval/permission of the AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council was not mad known to
any one including the students till the students who came out of the said two colleges applied for registration with the Pharmacy Council and their
applications were rejected on the sole ground that the said applicants have not attended the courses in the colleges approved by the said two
council. The fate of those students are still hanging. Apart from the students who have completed the course, there are other students who are now
studying in the first/second/third/final year as the case may be, in the said colleges are the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions.
Apart from the said admitted fact, two other startling facts have to be pointed out. They are (I) The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University,
(hereinafter referred as the University) has granted affiliation to these two institutions for conferring Degree in Pharmacy and which affiliation has
been in force from the inception of the colleges. (II) on the University addressing the State Government and the Selection Committee, the Selection
Committee has admitted students under the Single Window System for both the colleges for the past few years. The students so admitted in the
two colleges are substantial in number while a few were also admitted under the management quota.
It is rather surprising and shocking as to how the University has granted affiliation without the approval or permission of AICTE or the
Pharmacy Council of India and it is shocking that the Selection Committee has selected candidates under the Single Window system and allotted
substantial number of candidates to the said two pharmacy collages.
For the past several years the colleges have managed to secure affiliation and students were being allotted by the Selection Committee under
the Single Window System. These startling facts which are rather extraordinary are not in dispute nor it could be ignored. Who has contributed for
this situation is a Question which looms large and deserve to be focussed in these batch of writ petitions.
This court will not be justified in sympathasing with the colleges as the two colleges have admitted students who are undergoing the course or
who have already completed the course, with full knowledge that they have not secured approval and the merit listed students who joined for a
professional carrier, taken for a ride with the connivance of the University or the State Authorities, who have not chosen to verify the minimum
requirements in respect of these two institutions. It is a well known fact that before ever granting No Objection Certificate or forwarding the
application to AICTE, the State Government as well as the University Authorities in respect of all the institutions hitherto invariably taking such a
stand that nobody could easily secure NOC, assuming that such a Certificate is required and they have to fight a battle of litigation against the State
Government and University in respect of professional colleges. When such is the factual position it is not known as to how the University has
granted affiliation and how the Selection Committee has selected the candidates under the Single Window System and allotted the candidates for
being admitted to both the institutions, which is an extraordinary situation and conduct which neither the University nor the State or the Selection
Committee could explain at all except pointing out each other.
The well settled legal position is that without securing the approval/permission AICTE and the Pharmacy Council, no technical institutions
leading to the Degree in Pharmacy could be established. Only after getting the approval of the said two authorities namely AICTE as well as
Pharmacy Council of India, if at all the institutions could approach the University for affiliation. Copy of the Affiliation Proceedings was placed
before the Court in respect of the institutions, which would show that the University has granted affiliation subject to the two institutions getting
approval of the AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India. This approach of the University is nothing but putting the horse behind the cart, a total
negation of settled legal position and illegality committed and for best reasons known to it. Such an approach is shocking and extraordinary and this
court is unable to comprehend such conduct, which has seriously affected few hundred students, as they are being thrown to streets and their
parents who have already spent substantial sum have been made to lose heavily.
Much could be said against the said two institutions and they cannot plead ignorance, nor they could plead that their action is bona fide.
However, it is left open to the students to take appropriate action against the two institutions. The two institutions except repeating that they have
got affiliation and students were admitted through Single Window System, at one stretch embolden to contend AICTE/Pharmacy council
permission is not required and also suggested that they have applied for AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India for approval/permission and they
are yet to be approved. Therefore it is not necessary to refer to the counter affidavit filed by the two institutions.
On behalf of The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University, in W.P.No.8866 of 2002, it has been stated that the State Government in
G.O.Ms.No.95, Health and Family Welfare (MEII) Department, dated 29.1.1993 permitted the Secretary, Mohideen Batcha Eductional
Committee, Kadayanallur to start I B.Pharmacy Degree course from the academic year 1993-94 within an annual intake of 50 students. The
Governing Council of the University by a resolution dated 23.6.1994 granted provisional affiliation to Fathima College of Pharmacy for starting 1st
year B.Pharmacy degree course from the academic year 1993-94. Thereafter the affiliation was continuously granted upto the Academic year
1998-99.
According to the counter, the inspection committee inspected the college for the year 1999-2000 with respect to the proposal for continuance
of provisional affiliation, which committee pointed out lot of deficiencies after inspection. Once again another committee inspected for continuance
of provisional affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001 and a report was placed before the Affiliation Sub Committee in its meeting held on
28.2.2001. The Sub Committee observed that the said institution had not taken any effort to rectify the deficiencies repeatedly pointed out and
hence the said committee recommended to issue a show cause notice to the institution for not improving its infrastructure facilities.
These again exhibits the colossal attitude of the university in granting affiliation and extending without infrastructure at all for several years. The
Governing Council approved the recommendation in its meeting held on 9.3.2001. A show cause notice was issued to the institution on 9.4.2001
as to why the continuance of provisional affiliation granted for conducting B-Pharm Degree course should not be withdrawn as the institution has
not obtained and produced the Pharmacy Council of India/AICTE approval and for deficiencies in regard to infrastructure facilities. It is rather
curious such a thing dawned upon the university for the first time after grant of affiliation for several years. The University also recommended to
stop the admission of I year B-Pharm course in that context. Therefore the name of the institution has not been included in the prospectus for
2001-2002 under single window system of admission.
Yet,after receipt of explanation from the College, the University Governing Council by its resolution dated 29.6.2001 resolved to reduce the
seas from 50 to 25 for the Academic year 2001-2002 and the same has been intimated to the Selection Committee for information and necessary
actin. The Governing Council also resolved for the continuance of provisional affiliation for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001 in its meeting held on
21.7.2000. The said institution was warned severely to obtain the approval of AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India and also intimated the
institution that admission for the year 2002-2003 will be stopped completely.
For the year 2002-2003 no provisional affiliation has been granted for want of permission by the Pharmacy Council of India as well as AICTE
and as the deficiencies pointed out have not been rectified. As a result of which, the name of the college has not been recommended to the
Selection Committee for allotment of candidates. These startling revelations are shocking and such omissions stare at the Medical University.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for Pharmacy Counsel that transfer of students from the said Fathima College of Pharmacy or Pearl
Peace Mission College to any other college cannot be considered at all, as transfer is permissible with the approval of Pharmacy council only from
one recognised Pharmacy College to another recognised college of Pharmacy as per the Pharmacy council of India Act and also as per the
University Regulations. In terms of Section 35A of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Act, 1987 the admission is being done by the
Government through the Selection Committee under single window system and transfer/shifting if any has to be by the orders of the Government
and Director of Medical Education from one approved to another approved institution.
It is relevant to refer to the counter affidavit filed by the AICTE in W.P.No.8231 of 2002. On 20th September, 2001 the Pearl Peace Medical
Mission made an application for establishment of a New Technical institution during the academic year 2002-2003. In that application, it is
disclosed by the said college that it has applied during the year 1997 and it is admitted by the said Mission that no approval has actually been
granted. In Column NO.9 relating to Track Record of the institution, it is stated by the Institution that it was established in the year 1996 and that it
was in the 5th year of operation.
It is pointed out that the approval from AICTE is necessary for establishment of the institution and such approval has not been granted till date.
Till approval is obtained the no college could be established and administered as a technical institution. It is clear that the said college has acted in
violation of the said provisions since 1996 in establishing the institution without the approval of AICTE. It is further stated that the students are
undergoing the course commencing from first year to final year.
The circumstances under which the Selection Committee has allotted the students to the said institution is not known to AICTE. Declaration of
results is also equally illegal and in violation of mandatory provisions. It is further stated that appropriate action should be taken against the
management of the colleges for conducting the course in violation of law. The AICTE has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
In WP.No.8866 of 2002, the AICTE has set out thus in the counter affidavit.
The respondent college submitted application on 19.9.2001 containing a proposal for the establishment of a new technical institution for the
academic year 2002-2003. Till this date, no approval has been granted by AICTE for the said college. Though the college has claimed that it is
running the college since academic year 1993-94 it has not secured the approval and therefore it is clear that establishment of this institution is in
violation of AICTE Act and the Regulations. Only during the year 1998 the College has acquired the land. B Pharm course is a four year course.
AICTE is not in a position to assess the total number of students studying in various years and number of students who have passed out earlier.
AICTE has granted approval on the basis of application on 10.6.2002 for the year 2002-2003 with a sanctioned intake of 50 students. The
students who have been admitted earlier to 2002-2003 have not been admitted pursuant to an order of approval of AICTE. It is contended that
the petitioners are not entitled to any relief"".
The State Government also filed separate counter in W.P.Nos:7667, 8231, 8866, 10305 and 13945 of 2002. As seen from the counter, the
State Government has prescribed the norms and conditions for granting permission to private educational institutions to start BDS/B-Pharm
courses on self financing basis. As per Condition No.6 in the annexure, a private self financing college should get recognition from the Pharmacy
council of India and AICTE before the first batch of candidates pass out from the institution. Condition No.22 stipulates that self financing
institution shall fulfill the requirements stipulated by Pharmacy council of India and the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University.
The State Government granted permission to Mohideen Basha Educational Committee to start B Pharmacy degree course from the academic
year 1993-94 with annual intake of 50 students in G.O.ms.No.95, Health and Family Welfare dated 29.1.1993. So also the Government has
issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.808 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 8.6.1993 permitting the Pearl Peace Medical Mission to start
B.Pharm course with an annual intake of 50 students, subject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.190,Health and Family Welfare
Department dated 30.8.1991. According to the stipulations the institution should approach the Pharmacy Council of India for approval, which is
one of the conditions imposed. The two institutions approached Dr.M.G.R.Medical University for affiliation and the Medical University granted
affiliation to the said two institutions. The petitioners were admitted through single window system or through centralised Counseling.
Transfer from one Pharmacy college to another pharmacy college falls within the purview of the concerned University and Pharmacy council of
India as per circular of Pharmacy council of India issued on 12.6.2001. A student can seek for migration from one institution to another institution
provided both the institutions are recognised. Such transfer shall not exceed 5% of the total intake of the strength sanctioned by the Pharmacy
council of India.
It is stated that the State Government has first granted permission subject to the condition that the Self Financing College should get the
registration from the Pharmacy Council of India. The two institutions have violated the statutory provisions and proceeded to conduct classes
merely on the basis of affiliation granted by Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and admission under single window system.
The selection committee has acted upon the list of affiliated colleges furnished by the University. As the University has granted affiliation the
State Government and the Selection committee have not chosen to countercheck or verify the correctness of the affiliation granted by the
University, nor they cared to verify whether permission has been secured from Pharmacy council and AICTE. On the communication received
from the University, students were admitted under Single Window System.
It is admitted that the few of the petitioners who have passed B.Pharm Course are not in a position to register themselves with the Pharmacy
Council of India for want of approval from AICTE and the Pharmacy Council of India. Such a situation has been created by the self financing
colleges which have deliberately failed to approach the AICTE and Pharmacy Council properly to get permission/approval. The two institutions
are liable to compensate the students as well as liable for penal action if they have collected extra sums other than the fees notified by the
Government.
As the AICTE and the Pharmacy Council are the competent authorities, the State Government is not in a position to find any solution to the
problems faced by the writ petitioners.
The Director of Medical Education has already addressed the Pharmacy Council of India on 21.3.2002 for redistributing the students from the
unapproved self financing colleges to the approved/recognised colleges in the State. The Pharmacy council of India turned down the proposal by
informing the Director of Medical Education that transfer of students from one college to another college is possible only when the two colleges are
recognised by the Pharmacy Council of India.
In view of the said stand taken by the Pharmacy Council of India, neither the State Government nor the Director are in a position to solve the
problems faced by the students, who could not get themselves registered with the Pharmacy Council of India. Yet, the State Government prayed
for dismissal of all the writ petitions.
The Pharmacy Council of India has stated in its counter affidavit in W.P.NO:7667, 8231, 10305, 8866 and 13945 of 2002. The Pharmacy
Council of India referred to various provisions of the Pharmacy Council Act and the stipulations in respect of establishment of a college of
Pharmacy. Pearl Peace Medical Mission approached the Pharmacy Council of India on 1.12.1999 for approval for its pharmacy course. The
Pharmacy Council on submission of the prescribed format, by reply dated 11.11.1999 conveyed the shortcomings in the Standard Inspection
Form. Though the college has submitted a number of representations it was found that necessary facilities and infrastructure have not been
provided and the same has been communicated by the Pharmacy Council to the college. The Pharmacy Council also returned the Demand Draft
for Rs.40,000/= besides pointing out various shortcomings in its letters dated 20.12.1995, 9.6.2002 and 9.8.2000. The college was reminded and
there was no response. The college was called upon to state as to whether the approval of AICTE has been secured. The Pharmacy council after
receipt of the reply intimated the institution by letter dated 17.4.2001 that assurance cannot be treated as compliance and called upon the college
to rectify the deficiencies. Later there has been exchange of correspondence. But no approval has been granted by the Pharmacy Council of India
so far. The above facts are not in controversy.
It is further pointed out that the students should have been careful and it is their duty to confirm the bona fide of the institution which offer the
course on which their future and their entire career depends. The course offered by the institution is not an approved course either by AICTE or by
the Pharmacy Council of India. The petitioners are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction. The Pharmacy council cannot be compelled to
register the candidates who secured degrees through the said institutions as it would amount to playing with the health of the public. The students
have not studied substantial portion of the syllabus and such students having undergone course in an unapproved institution cannot seek the relief of
mandamus. The Pharmacy Council is in no way responsible for the omission or commission on the part of the college or the University or the
Selection Committee.
The relief prayed for cannot be granted as the students cannot get themselves admitted in an unapproved institution and they are not eligible to
sit for the examination and consequently they are not entitled to claim registration. Section 12 of the Pharmacy Council Act is mandatory and the
institution could not have established a college without the prior approval of AICTE or Pharmacy Council of India. It is also pointed out that no
relief has been prayed for as against the Pharmacy Council. Unless and until the two institutions are approved by AICTE and Pharmacy Council of
India the transfer of students is not feasible.
The Pharmacy Council in sum and substance pointed out thus in respect of the both institutions.
(a) The seventh respondent institution is not an approved institution u/s 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act for the conduct of the B Pharm course ;
(b) As the course of study in which the petitioner students have undergone was not approved u/s 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act, the petitioner
students are not eligible to sit in the examination u/s 12(2) of the Pharmacy Act ;
(c) The petitioners did not approach the Pharmacy Council for finding out the approval or real status of the seventh respondent college before
taking admissions ;
(d) If the prayer of the petitioners is acceded, it will not only in disregard to the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, but may tantamount to playing
with the health of the public which is of prime importance because the petitioners have not undergone an approved training required for registration
as a pharmacist ;
(e) If the prayer is acceded, it will set a wrong precedent for similarly situated students who have passed from an unapproved institution to claim
registration and may open floodgates of litigations ;
(f) If the prayer is acceded, it will encourage the institutions not to take the approval of the pharmacy council of India for running a course of study
and examination leading to registration as a pharmacist and thereby the very purpose of the enactment of the Pharmacy Act and the constitution of
the Pharmacy Council of India would be defeated ;
(g) It will set a wrong precedent for similar unapproved institution to run unapproved course and later on seek for transfer to other approved
institutions ;
(h) If transfer from unapproved institutions to approved institution is allowed, it will increase the intake capacity in the approved institution which is
approved for a specific intake capacity, thus leading to dilution of the educational standards.
The colleges themselves have filed a counter denying the allegation that the students have been mislead by them and fraudulently acted in a
manner to cheat the petitioners by not disclosing the fact that the colleges have not been approved by AICTE and by Pharmacy Council of India. It
is claimed that the college has acted as per the directions of the Selection Committee and admitted students. It is not correct to state that the
college has mislead the students and falsely represented as if the college has been approved. No complaint has been received from any of the
students. The students have appeared for the entrance examination which was conducted by the Selection Committee and thereafter they were
allotted to the respondent colleges and they have rightly presumed that both the collages are approved institutions and they are authorised to
conduct the course.
It is true that the colleges in their respective prospectus have referred to the G.O by which the State Government has granted approval and the
details of affiliation given by Dr.M.G.R.Medical University. Transfer of students will result in monetary loss and administrative problems. Therefore
the colleges pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. Identical counters have been filed in the remaining writ petitions.
Fathima college of Pharmacy while admitting that the second respondent AICTE and Pharmacy council have declined to grant
permission/approval uptill now, it is stated that many colleges are functioning without the permission of the Pharmacy council of India or AICTE in
the State. Out of eight colleges who have applied, only S.A.Raja College for Pharmacy alone was granted permission during the year 2002-2003
by the second respondent. It is the practice of the AICTE and Pharmacy Council to grant retrospective approval. It is submitted that Mohideen
Basha Educational Committee started the college in good faith and that permission of the third respondent is not mandatory.
It is also extraordinary to contend that the college was made to believe by many people conversant with educational institutions and the
University that NOC granted by the Director of Medical Education and the affiliation granted by the University will be sufficient for all purposes
and enable the college to admit students and get recognition from AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India. The college has no intention to cause
wrongful loss. Number of students have taken up the examinations conducted by the University at various levels. Four students are writing first
year, 13 students writing second year, 12 students are writing third year and 4 students are writing 4th year and rest of the students are writing
arrears.
IV. Discussions on the Point :
From the above admitted facts set out above the two colleges as detailed in the counter affidavit filed by the University, the State Government,
AICTE and the Pharmacy Council, it is clear that, till date approval has not been secured by the two colleges to establish a Pharmacy college
either from the AICTE or from Pharmacy Council. As already pointed out the University has granted affiliation without insisting for production of
approval/permission by AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India before ever taking up the application for affiliation submitted by the institutions for
consideration. In this case it is the reverse which the University has adopted for reasons best known. It is not only illegal but it is with an obvious
intention to help the two institutions and with full knowledge of implications.
The University has conveniently prescribed a condition that affiliation is granted subject to the institution getting approval from AICTE and
Pharmacy Council, which approach is impermissible in law. The very affiliation by the University could be granted only if the institutions are
approved by AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India, which authorities have to consider the application for approval for locating the college of
Pharmacy in terms of the statutory provisions of the two central enactments. The role of the University to grant affiliation starts only after full
compliance of the statutory requirement under the two central enactments and not at any time earlier since the University is first concerned with
academic matters.
The institutions have miserably failed to secure approval/permission from the two competent bodies for several years. That being the admitted
factual position it is rather extraordinary for the University to have granted affiliation continuously and so also for the selection committee to have
admitted and allotted students to the two institutions not just for a year or two, but for a number of years continuously.
The students have been obviously made to believe that the colleges are approved institutions, as they are affiliated and the selection committee
has allotted the students under Single Window System to the two institutions. It is stated by the State Government that on the basis of the affiliation
it has included the two institutions in the list of Pharmacy colleges validly established and on that basis the students have been admitted. This again
is not a responsible stand of the State Government or the Selection Committee. For the same reasons, the University''s stand and actin also cannot
be held to be a responsible one. But for the omission or commission on the part of the University such conduct for a year could be taken as
omission by over sight, but for a number of years it is a deliberate one. This conduct deserves to be deprecated strongly. This is so on the part of
the Selection Committee. The petitioners who appeared in the common entrance examination and applied for admission to B-Pharm course should
not have been admitted to the two institutions which are unapproved and which have not been established legally as a college of Pharmacy in terms
of the AICTE Act as well as the Pharmacy Council Act.
Mr.Elamurugan, learned counsel sought to contend that it is not necessary to secure approval of Pharmacy council. This court is unable to
countenance such a contention as it would amount to ignoring the statutory provisions of the Pharmacy Council Act as well as AICTE Act. The
colleges have not taken appropriate action for getting approval or permission from AICTE or Pharmacy Council fro several years and they are
sitting silent and hundreds of students being made to suffer as a result of the concealment of facts by the two institutions and omission on the part of
Dr.M.G.R.Medical University as well as the State Government.
This court with a view to find out the feasibility of transferring the students from the the two institutions to any other approved/recognised and
affiliated institution called upon the counsel for the University as well as the State Government to get instructions. It is reported by the counsel for
the University as well as the State Government that vacancies are available in various approved/recognised and affiliated institutions in the State for
the first year, second year, third year as well the fourth year.
Mr.Muralikumaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pharmacy Council of India as well as Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned standing
counsel appearing for AICTE contend that so long as the two institutions are not approved by AICTE and Pharmacy Council, the students who
have undergone studies in the unapproved colleges cannot be transferred to any other college as if have undergone the course in an approved
institution. That apart, these institutions do no possess any infrastructure and any direction in this respect would be compelling the respondents to
commit an illegality or violate the statutory provisions, which govern the two bodies. There is force in the submissions made by Mr.Mulralikumaran
as well as the contentions advanced by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Pharmacy Council in this respect.
In respect of the two institutions, this court could definitely restrain the two institutions from admitting students any further for the current year
as well as for the future till the two institutions are approved by AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council and get fresh orders of affiliation from the
University. The earlier affiliation if any being void cannot be relied upon by the two institutions.
Mr.Elamurugan, learned counsel appearing for one of the institution sought to rely upon pronouncement of the Apex Court in Bharathidasan
University VS . AICTE reported in in support of his contention that it is not necessary to secure prior approval of AICTE. The reliance placed
upon the said pronouncement is a misconception and the said pronouncement has no application. In the said case it has been held that
Bharathidasan University which has been created by Bharathidasan University Act is not required to seek prior approval of AICTE to start a
department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution, as such institution is an adjunct to the University
itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection.
In this respect it is to be pointed out that the Supreme Court in the said case examined the contention whether Bharathidasan University should
seek prior approval of AICTE to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an
adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical course of its choice and selection. It should not be forgotten that the appellant in the said case
before the Apex Court is the Bharathidasan University, which is governed by the Bharathidasan University Act. Bharathidasan University proposed
to start course in Technology such as Information Technology and Bio-engineering technology, Petrochemical Engineering Technology,
Pharmaceutical Engineering Technology etc. The AICTE moved the High Court for a writ of mandamus to forbear the University from running any
course and programme in those technical courses. While considering the said contention the writ petition was allowed by a Single Judge and it was
also affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.
The Apex Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and held thus:-
To put it in a nutshell, a reading of Section 10 of the AICTE Act will make it clear that whenever the Act omits to cover a ""university"", the
same has been specifically provided in the provisions of the Act. For example, while under clause (k) of Section 10 only ""technical institutions"" are
referred to, clause (o) of Section 10 provides for the guidelines for admission of students to ""technical institutions"" and ""universities"" imparting
technical education. If we look at the definition of a ""technical institution"" u/s 2(h) of the Act, it is clear that a ""technical institution"" cannot include a
university"". The clear intention of the legislature is not that all institutions whether university or otherwise ought to be treated as ""technical
institutions"" covered by the Act. If that was the intention, there was no difficulty for the legislature to have merely provided a definition of ""technical
institution"" by not excluding ""university"" from the definition thereof and thereby avoided the necessity to use alongside both the words ""technical
institutions"" and university in several provisions in the Act. The definition of ""technical institution"" excludes from its purview a ""university"". When by
definition a ""university"" is excluded from a ""technical institution"", to interpret that such a clause or such an expression wherever the expression
technical institution"" occurs will include a ""university"" will be reading into the Act what is not provided therein. The power to grant approval for
starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes in consultation with the agencies concerned is covered by
Section 10(k) which would not cover a ""university"" but only a ""technical institution"". If Section 10(k) does not cover a ""university"" but only a
technical institution"", a regulation cannot be framed in such a manner so as to apply the regulation framed in respect of ""technical institution"" to
apply to universities when the Act maintains a complete dichotomy between a ""university"" and a ""technical institution"". Thus, we have to focus our
attention mainly to the Act in question on the language adopted in that enactment. In that view of the matter, it is, therefore, not even necessary to
examine the scope of other enactments or whether the Act prevails over the University Act or effect of competing entries falling under Entries 63 to
65 of List I vis-�-vis Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
In my considered view, the reliance placed on the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court by Mr.Elamurugan has no application and it is
clearly distinguishable. That apart, the contention advanced by Mr.Elamurugan is against the very teeth of the provisions of the Pharmacy Council
Act, 1948 in particular Section 10A of the Act which is mandatory. So also there is an identical provision in The All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1956 which need not be elaborated in the light of various binding pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
In Jaya Gokul Educational Trust Vs. The Commissioner and Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala State and Another, , while following the decisions reported in State of T.N. and Another Vs. Adhiyaman Educational and Research
Institute and Others, and Thirumuruga Kirupananda Variyarthavathiru Sundara Swamigalme Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, , the Apex
Court held that for established technical institutions like Engineering or Pharmaceutical or Dental or Medical, the provisions of the Central Act
alone are required to be complied with.� Affiliation is a different matter and the approval or permission of AICTE or Dental Council or Medical
Council or Pharmacy Council is the pre-requisite for obtaining affiliation from the University, though conditions that may be imposed by the
University may not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act.� In other words, grant of approval for established educational
institutions is the primordial requisite even for an University to grant affiliation.
Therefore it follows, without the approval or permission of AICTE or Pharmacy Council of India no college could be established and the grant
of affiliation without approval or permission is void and the same will not confer any right either on the institutions, which secured affiliation nor the
students could derive any kind of benefit by their undergoing course in these unapproved institutions, be it a year or two years or for the entire
course.
Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General rightly contended that the students of unauthorised colleges are not entitled to a
direction from the Court to permit them to sit in examination or to accommodate in any recognised institution to pursue their studies. The learned
counsel relied upon the pronouncement in State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others, . The Apex Court in the said
pronouncement held thus:-
11.....The teacher needs, not only the training at the inception, but also periodical orientations in this behalf so that the children would reap the rich
benefit thereof. The ill-equipped and ill-housed institutions and sub-standard staff therein are counter-productive and detrimental to inculcating
spirit of enquiry and excellence in the students. The disregard of statutory compliance would amount to letting loose of innocent and unwary
children. The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi, as published by the Times of India dated August 4, 1992, would demonstrate the
admission by the teachers that they are not properly trained to cope up with the growing needs of the society and are unsuited to the duties they
have to shoulder in imparting teaching to the children. The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude
for educational excellence in impressive young children. Formal education needs proper equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the day
to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed
skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal
instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-
changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that
pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in
the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a
school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to
recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of
education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is
subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest
error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to
appear for the examination etc.
The learned Additional Solicitor General also relied upon the pronouncement in C.B.S.E. and Another Vs. P. Sunil Kumar and Others, where
the Apex Court after following the pronouncement in Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another, as well as Central Board
of Secondary Education Vs. Nikhil Gulati and Another, deprecated the directions issued by the High Court of Kerala as wholly erroneous and
cannot be sustained which direction enabled the students to appear for the examination. In this respect it has been held thus:-
On the admitted position and in view of the law laid down by this Court referred to above, Mr.Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General
appearing for the appellants, contended that the impugned direction of the High Court is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. The learned
counsel appearing for the students in different appeals did not dispute the position that the schools from where their clients have perused their
studies are not yet affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. But they mainly contended that the students having been permitted to
appear at the examination and they having been successful and certificates having been issued in their favour, it would work out great injustice, if
the impugned directions of the High Court are set aside at this length of time. In support of this contention they placed reliance on a recent decision
of this Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati5. In the aforesaid case, this Court deprecated the practice
followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future but did not
interfere with the ultimate direction of the High Court on the ground that fond hopes have been raised in the minds of the students and therefore it
would be inappropriate to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution. We are unable to apply the reasoning given in the aforesaid case,
inasmuch as there is no iota of material placed before us to indicate that the Central Board of Secondary Education, the appellants herein, either
directly or indirectly had held out to the students at any point of time that the institutions in which they are prosecuting their studies have been
affiliated or are going to be affiliated in the near future. We are conscious of the fact that our order setting aside the impugned directions of the High
Court would cause injustice to these students. But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the
Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would
tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour
of the students. In view of the aforesaid premises, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court as well as
the interim orders issued by the Single Judge in several petitions out of which the writ appeals arose and the writ petitions filed by the respondents
stand dismissed. These appeals are allowed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
The Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Others Vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Another, deprecated the practice of
admitting students by unauthorized educational institutions and seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination, which
has been looked with disfavour.
In St. John''s Teacher Training Institute (for Women), Madurai, Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, etc. etc., , the Apex Court laid down that
the Court should not issue fiat to allow the students of unrecognized institutions to appear at the different examinations and expressed its concern in
such matters after reviewing the entire case law on the subject. In the said reported pronouncement, the Apex Court confirmed the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in P.M. Joseph Vs. State of T.N. & Others reported in 1993 WLR 604. The Division Bench, while quashing very many
permissions granted in favour of various training institutes as not in conformity with the stipulations, also made it clear that appearance in the
examination or publication of results will not confer any right on the institution or their students to get any consequential benefits such as issue of
diploma and certificates, etc. This Court is bound by the said pronouncements and respectfully follow the same.
Once again the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Era Educational Trust and Another, deprecated the grant of interim direction which is
mandatory in nature and such direction results in violation of statutory provision of AICTE Act, the ""other body"" and such direction could not have
been granted at all after the expert body had rejected the request for permission.
In the light of the above pronouncement this court shall not be justified in directing the transfer of students from the two institutions which are
unapproved to any other institutions which are approved. In the present case, but for the grant of affiliation and the allotment of students under
Single Window System, the writ petitioners would not have got themselves admitted to the two unapproved institutions. Therefore the present case
is to be viewed differently and on its own merits.
It is equally true that the two institutions are to be blamed in that they have concealed the fact that they have not secured approval of the two
expert bodies namely AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council. Without getting approval the colleges could not have obtained affiliation, nor they
could be allotted candidates under Single Window System. The students who have undergone the course could not register themselves with the
Pharmacy Council. Management of the two institutions have conveniently concealed these materials from the eyes of the students. That apart, the
omission on the part of the University is rather extraordinary and it speaks for itself. So also the commission on the part of the Selection Committee
in allotting candidates under Single Window System to the two institutions, which have not been approved.
AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council also cannot plead ignorance, nor they could close their eyes. They have got their regional offices and they
could have taken sufficient steps to put the students as well as the University and the State Government on notice about the non approval of the
two institutions.
AICTE as well as Pharmacy Council also cannot sit in Ivory Towers and after the event could raise such objections. They also owe obligation
to the society and they cannot remain silent spectators, since they are entrusted with enforcement of the two central enactments. AICTE as well as
Pharmacy Council have organizations throughout India to watch such institutions being run throughout India and they have all the power to stop
such institutions or they could have come before this court at the earliest opportunity, which failure on the part of the AICTE as well as Pharmacy
Council which costed the petitioners also deserve to be pointed out. They cannot also plead ignorance of the two colleges as they are being run for
years together and more than two or three set of students came out of the colleges. After the students coming out of the colleges it is rather
extraordinary for the Pharmacy Council to plead that they came to know about the institutions only after the students came out of the college and
apply for registration. The University has communicated the copy of affiliation proceedings to the said two bodies. Yet they have kept silent.
The University while granting affiliation at the first instance and later on every year has communicated copy of its proceedings to the All India
Council for Technical Education as well as The Pharmacy Council of India. Yet the said two authorities under the respective Central Enactments
have not chosen to raise a query with the University or raise any objection as to how the University has granted affiliation when necessary approval
has not been accorded by the said two authorities. Conveniently, the AICTE and Pharmacy Council have kept silent for reasons best known to
them and much could be said against them for their inaction. The Regional Offices of the said two bodies also have kept silent. This is also not a
normal conduct on the part of the two bodies who are the competent authorities under the enactments namely, The All India Council For Technical
Education Act and The Pharmacy Act.
Even assuming the statement to be correct this court is unable to appreciate as to how the Pharmacy council kept quiet when the two colleges
for Pharmacy are being opened without the approval and it is rather too late for them to contend that they are not aware. The council should have
taken appropriate action at the earliest, which course alone would be commensurate with the status of such All India expert bodies.
Taking into consideration of the entire matter, the plight of the students who have completed the course and the students who are undergoing
the first year, second year, third year or 4th year course, though University pleads that the students could be transferred to some other approved
colleges, in the light of the Supreme Court decisions, this court will not be justified in transferring the students to any other approved institutions as
these two institutions where the students have undergone the course are not approved institutions. However, it should not be lost sight of the fact
that the students have wasted prime part of their life. In the interest of the innocent students, substantial justice has to be rendered.
It was persuasively argued that this court has to necessarily come to the rescue of the students at least to a certain extent while following the
decisions of the Supreme Court. It is true that the same University has conducted examinations and some of the students have passed either the
first year or second year or third year and some final year as well. But that will not help the students in the light of the binding pronouncements of
the Supreme Court referred to above as well as the pronouncement in Dental Council of India case.
In The Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and Another, , the Apex Court held thus :-
Further while upholding the validity of these Regulations, in Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka (SCC at p. 154), this Court has
observed that these Regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section
If a regulation falls within the purposes referred u/s 33 of the Medical Council Act, it will have mandatory force. Similarly in State of Punjab v.
Renuka Singla the Court held thus: (SCC p.178, para 8)
It cannot be disputed that technical education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper
education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is
fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the
institution and number of admissions, on ''compassionate ground''.
* * * * * * *
He also referred to a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale7 wherein it was held that
the students of unrecognized and unauthorized educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being
filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated in recognized institutions. The Court observed: (SCC p.439, para 12)
Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the
education.
Similarly in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal8 another three-Judge Bench of this Court interfered with the interim order
passed by the High Court to allow students to undergo internship course even without passing the MBBS examination. It was held that: (SCC
p.403, para 7) ""The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions."" In A.P. Christians Medical
Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P.9 this Court observed that the Court cannot by its fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it
owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself as that would be destructive of the rule of law.
There cannot be any dispute that normally the court should not interfere with the functioning of the educational institutions, particularly, expert
bodies like MCI or DCI. Still however, the question is posed that if such bodies act arbitrarily for some ulterior purpose, whether the court has the
power to set right such arbitrary exercise of power by such authorities. We find the answer to this question in the affirmative. We also agree with
the learned Solicitor General that educational institutions should not be permitted to be commercialised for earning money, but at the same time, the
courts can do very little in this field as it is the function of expert bodies, such as, the Medical Council of India or the Dental Council of India.
However, citizens would lose faith in such institutions if the allegations made in this appeal are repeatedly made with regard to the inspection
reports and granting of approval by the Central Government. We leave this question for the Central Government to deal with appropriately as it is
the function of the authorities concerned to plug the loopholes and see that in such matters nothing hanky-panky happens.�
To a suggestion from the court, the counsel for the Pharmacy Council represented that the Pharmacy Council will not consider any relaxation
or variation with respect to transfer policy as such transfer is impermissible from an unapproved college to any other approve college.
This contention also cannot be ignored even though the students have lost valuable portion of their life and money. The two institutions also
cannot be allowed to go scot free.
Taking into consideration of the entire facts, the extraordinary circumstances created by all Respondents and to render substantial justice to
students who spent considerable number of years in Colleges which are unapproved in the light of conduct of all the respondents, while following
the law laid down by the Supreme Court, including the pronouncement reported in Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. M.L.R.Saraswathi College
of Education to render substantial justice, this court issue the following directions :-
A) This Court directs (1) Pearl Peace Medical Mission College & Pharmacy, Pettai, Tirunelveli, (2) Fathima College of Pharmacy, Kadayanallur,
(3) The Secretary, Selection Committee, 162, Periyar EVR High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, (4) Director of Medical Education, 162, Periyar EVR
High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai, shall not admit students in the said colleges, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical
Mission College & Pharmacy any further till the said two colleges secure the approval or permission of AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India and
till Dr. M.G.R. Medical University after inspection grants fresh affiliation for the future ;
B) The affiliation already granted in favour of the said Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy by
Dr. M.G.R. Medical University is declared null and void and the affiliation already granted by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University shall not be relied
upon by the said two institutions for any purpose whatsoever;
C) In respect of the said two colleges, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy, there will
be an order of injunction against the colleges Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy restraining
them from admitting students for B.Pharmacy course from conducting B.Pharm course till the respective institutions is approved by AICTE and
Pharmacy Council of India and fresh affiliation is granted by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University ;
D) The Director of Medical Education shall see that the above directions are complied forthwith by the two colleges, namely, Fathima College of
Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy and the Director of Medical Education shall be the authority to implement the
said directions ;
E) The students who have been so far admitted to Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy either
by the colleges themselves under the management quota or any other quota and all the students admitted under the single window system by the
selection committee and allotted to the colleges shall be admitted to other approved and affiliated colleges in the State as may be allocated by the
Registrar, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University to first year of studies in respect of students who have completed first year and undergoing 2nd year
course in these two colleges and the students who have completed 3rd and 4th year in the 3rd year of studies in these colleges and they shall take
up the examinations from the years for which they have been admitted and further years as well and only after completing the course in the colleges
now ordered to be admitted they shall be deemed to have been admitted validly to B.Pharm course and on successful completion and passing the
examination conducted by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University they shall be registered by the Pharmacy Council of India as if they have undergone the
course from inception in an approved institution ;
F) The admission of the petitioners and others identically placed shall be completed within four weeks from today. The University may also
consider granting exemption and condonation in respect of attendance wherever required for this year as special circumstance ;
G) Those who have already completed the course and left the said two colleges, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical
Mission College and Pharmacy, if they apply, they shall also be admitted and allotted to private colleges in the State, but they shall undergo one
year course, take up the University examination as if they have studied three years with the colleges to which they are now allotted by the
University and take up the final year examination once again and on their securing a degree in Pharmacy, they shall be deemed to have validly
undergone the course in an approved institution and the Pharmacy council shall register those graduates ;
H) It is made clear that students who are admitted as per the directions issued by this Court by the Registrar, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University shall
be deemed to have been admitted validly in private institutions and they shall be deemed to have undergone the course for all purposes including
for registration with the Pharmacy Council of India on their passing all the examinations conducted leading to B.Pharm course by Dr.M.G.R.
Medical University ;
I) The Registrar, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University in consultation with the selection committee shall forthwith issue orders re-allotting the petitioners
in the above writ petitions and other students who are identically placed for being admitted into other colleges, which have been established validly
and affiliated to the University ;
J) The two institutions, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy, the management shall
refund all amounts so far collected by them from the respective students and the same shall be remitted by the institutions within four months to the
Registrar, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University ;
K) Each of the writ petitioner and other students who is undergoing or undergone studies in the above two institutions shall submit a statement of
account with respect to the amounts remitted by them with supporting vouchers towards tution fee or any other fee or any other amount under
whatever head to the Registrar, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University within six weeks from today. On the students furnishing the statement of accounts,
the Registrar, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University shall call upon the two institutions, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical
Mission College and Pharmacy to remit the amount to a special account to be opened by the Registrar, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University and in
respect of such amounts so remitted shall be utilized for payment of fees to the colleges to which the students are allotted afresh ;
L) The students who are directed to be allotted and admitted to other Private or Government colleges of Pharmacy in the State shall be liable to
pay fees as if they have been admitted on merit quota (Government quota) and not under management quota ;
M) For the petitioners and other students who are identically placed, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University shall not collect fees for those years of
examination which the petitioners and others identically placed have already remitted fees and appeared irrespective of the results of such
appearance in the examinations ;
N) The selection committee and the State Government are directed to delist the said two colleges, namely, Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl
Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy from the list of institutions for which admission to B.Pharm is made under single window system ;
O) The AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India, if the said two institutions apply afresh by complying with the requirements stipulated by the
respective regulations, they may consider the application on merits and according to law by following the procedure prescribed in this behalf and
the said authorities shall give a disposal according to law for the future only and on their granting permission/approval, the University may consider
grant of fresh affiliation subject to the colleges complying with the requirements prescribed by the University, such as infrastructure, staff and other
requirements ;
P) The AICTE and the Pharmacy Council of India or their respective local council shall appoint a special officer from their council to inspect all the
institutions annually and satisfy themselves as to whether they have valid approval or permission either in the past or in the future or for each year of
study or block period as the case may be and in case the Pharmacy colleges do not either get renewal or approval or permission as the case may
be, shall forthwith intimate Dr.M.G.R. Medical University as well as the Secretary, Selection Committee about the failure of those colleges to get
approval or permission or renewal as the case may be and also give wide publicity in respect of such colleges who fail to secure permission or
approval of these bodies;
Q) Dr. M.G.R. Medical University shall convene a meeting calling upon the representative of the Pharmacy Council of India and the AICTE for a
joint verification of the institutions in the University and the said representatives of all the three bodies shall meet once in a year without fail and
exchange the particulars of the respective Pharmacy colleges and such meeting shall be completed before the 30th of May of each year. This
direction is issued as there is no coordination between the three bodies.
This court observe with heavy heart that each of the student and their parents have wasted considerable number of years of their life in those
institutions in spending huge amount and it is made clear that the students may initiate appropriate action against the two institution for damages or
compensation as the case may be by separate action before a competent court.
In the result, the writ petitions are ordered as above. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. The parties shall bear their
respective costs.
SUO MOTU NOTICE IN W.P. NOS. 37141, 8231, 8866, 10305 & 13945 OF 2002
E. Padmanabhan, J.—At the time of arguments it was brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for the two colleges, University, the
counsel for the AICTE and the counsel for Pharmacy Council of India and as seen from the list of institutions furnished by the respective bodies, it
is noticed that in respect of the institutions listed hereunder, neither there is an approval/permission by the AICTE or the Pharmacy Council of India
respectively as required under the AICTE Act or the Pharmacy Act nor there is valid affiliation in respect of these institutions, but these institutions
are established and being run.
In respect of these institutions also, the legal position will be the same as has been held by this Court in the above batch of writ petitions
concerning Fathima College of Pharmacy and Pearl Peace Medical Mission College and Pharmacy. In respect of the following colleges, this Court
takes suo motu action in the interest of the students who are undergoing studies in those colleges. With a view to save the students and this Court
will not be justified in closing its eyes when illegalities in respect of Pharmacy education is brought to the notice of this Court.
This Court orders notice to (i) The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Education Department, (ii) The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai, (iii) The Principal and (iv) The Correspondent and Management of the following institutions calling upon them to file a statement
as to ::-
(A) Whether they have secured the approval or permission of AICTE and Pharmacy Council of India as prescribed by the two enactments ?
(B) Whether they have secured affiliation from Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, if so, when and for which period ? Whether affiliation is valid for
the current year ?
(C) How many students have been admitted ? Whether admission is under single window system ? How many students are undergoing studies ? If
so, furnish the list of students and year of their respective studies and their appearance in the respective University examinations with details of year
of appearance and passing of examinations ?
(D) Whether applications for grant of approval or permission is pending with AICTE or Pharmacy Council, if any ? What is the stage of those
applications ? Whether the colleges have the infrastructure as prescribed by the AICTE and the Pharmacy Council of India and the University ?
(E) Whether inspection committee constituted by the AICTE or Pharmacy Council or the University have inspected the institutions and report, if
any, available in that respect ? Produce the report ;
(F) Apart from filing an affidavit containing the above details or furnishing copies of proceedings of AICTE or the Pharmacy Council or University
as well as the State Government or Secretary, Common Selection Committee, the Principal of the respective colleges are directed to intimate the
students studying in their respective colleges about this suo motu action taken by this Court and intimating that it is open to one or more of the
students studying in these colleges to appear either in person or through counsel representing the students and state their stand, which notice will be
considered as sufficient for all purposes. The Principal of the colleges shall file a statement separately in this respect about the notice given in this
respect to the students undergoing studies in their respective colleges.
Notice returnable by three weeks on the Correspondent of the respective colleges as well as the Principal of the colleges. Dr. M.G.R. Medical
University is also directed to serve a notice on the above colleges'' returnable on 2.12.2002. No adjournment will be granted for filing the affidavit
or statement and statements/affidavits shall affidavits shall be filed on the date of hearing.
Call on 2.12.2002.