The appellate authority should not non-suit the petitioner on additional reasons not confronted with the petitioner-institution, and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to rectify deficiencies before a final decision is made.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--This petition seeks to challenge the action of the respondent i.e. Pharmacy Council Of India (PCI) in not allowing the petitioner-institution to admit 100 students in B. Pharm Course for the academic session 2022-2023.

2. The facts of the case relevant to decide the instant petition are as under:

(i) The petitioner-institution is an on-going institution since 2019. The PCI had granted approval to the petitioner-institution for running B. Pharm Course with 60 intake capacity. There is no dispute with respect to operation of the said course.

(ii) The petitioner for academic session 2022-2023, with the object to enhance the intake capacity from 60 to 100, had applied to the PCI well in advance in the month of January 2022.

(iii) It is the case of the petitioner-institution that the required inspection etc. was conducted and vide decision of its Executive Committee, dated 25.07.2022, on non-existent grounds, the case of the petitioner-institution was rejected for increasing the intake capacity from 60 to 100. According to him, the only reason assigned for rejection of his case was that the petitioner-institution failed to submit the consent of the examining authority. Hence, the application for increasing the intake capacity was rejected.

(iv) The petitioner states that he preferred an appeal against the said order and the appellate authority vide order dated 11.11.2022, rejected the appeal on additional grounds, which were not even informed to the petitioner. He, therefore, states that the entire approach of the respondent-PCI is dehors the settled legal position that no adverse order should be passed unless an opportunity of hearing is granted.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-PCI opposed the petition and she states that the last date for admission in B. Pharm Course was 30.11.2022, which has already expired. According to her, unless the petitioner-institution is duly recognised, the same cannot be allowed to admit the students by way of interim measure. She states that such an approach has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. She however, does not dispute that the reason for rejection of the appeal was not the reason in the original order. She states that as a matter of fact, the petitioner-institution does not fulfil the statutory requirements envisaged under Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Pharmacy Institutions Regulations 2014.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

5. The order in original dated 25.07.2022, reads as under:

"Regarding raise in admission in B.Pharm course,

it was noted institution has failed to submit consent of examining authority. Hence application for raise in admission is rejected."

6. Extract of order in appeal i.e. 11.11.2022, reads as under:

"Regarding institution's request for raise in admission in B.Pharm-

It was noted that institution has failed to appoint faculty, failed to maintain faculty cadre ratio and disburse salary as per statutory provisions of-

• Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Pharmacy Institutions Regulations, 2014.
• The Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) Course Regulations, 2014."

7. It is thus seen that the impugned decision dated 11.11.2022 spells out additional reasons which admittedly have not been confronted with the petitioner-institution. It is also seen that at no point of time, the petitioner-institution was informed about any of the deficiencies existing in the petitioner-institution. It is thus seen that when the original order was passed on some different grounds then the appellate authority ought not to have non-suited the petitioner on additional reason. The scope of appeal was to examine as to whether the petitioner-institution had the requisite consent from the affiliating University or not. Hence, the order passed by the appellate authority suffers from material illegality and therefore, the same is set aside.

8. Le