Y. Krishan, Member - This is an appeal against an order dated 5th October, 1991 passed by the State Commission of Maharashtra in Complaint No. 35/90 on its file. The relevant facts as learned from the order of the State Commission are briefly set out below:

2. The two complainants before the State Commission, Ms. Swati Dikshitand Mr. Shridhar Dikshit, were students of D. Pharmacy course in the Pharmacy College run by the Opposite Party Sharada Bhavan Educational Society. The students were admitted to the College in July 1987.

They passed the final examination in May, 1989 and completed their practical training on 23rd, July, 1989. But the students colildobta in registration after having qualified in the D. Pharmacy course only in April, 1991.

3. Registration as duly qualified pharmacists is essential to enable a student to undergo three months practical training and to practice as a pharmacist. Because of the delay in getting the registration they remained unemployed after passing the Diploma in Pharmacy examination in May, 1989. Thus, they had to suffer for two years for being unable to do pharmacy work and this was due to the fact that this Pharmacy college had admitted students in excess of 30 the authorised maximum number of admissions. Consequently according to them there was deficiency in the service on the part of the management of the Pharmacy college. They claimed compensation amounting Rs. 2 lacs each for the loss sustained by them due to delay in getting registration as Pharmacist including mental torture, humiliation and traveling expenses.

4. The State Commission came to the finding that delay for registration of the students in question was due to delay in the communication of the orders between the concerned Departments of the Government of Maharashtra and that no negligence could be attributed to anyone of the opposite parties. The State Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint as void of substance.

5. To do justice to this appeal, we found it expedient to impleatd the Pharmacy Council of India. A number of hearings were held in this case and after taking into account the submissions made at the hearings, the information furnished• by the Pharmacy Council of India and after going through the records, we find that there is merit in the appeal.(1) In order to work as a Pharmacist, it is essential for a Pharmacist to be registered under the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. An institution can impart the course of Diploma in Pharmacy provided it has been approved by the Pharmacy Council of India. Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act of 1948 is reproduced below:

"Any authority in a State which holds an examination in Pharmacy may apply to the Central Council, for approval of the examination, and the Central Council, if satisfied; after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said examination is in conformity with the Education Regulations, shall declare the said examination to be an approved examination for the purpose of qualifying for registration as a pharmacist under this Act."

"Any authority in a date which conducts a course of study for pharmacists may apply to the Central Council for approval of the course, and the Central Council, if satisfied, after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said course of study is in conformity with the Education Regulations, shall declare the said course of study for the purpose of admission to an approved examination for pharmacists. "

The statutory provisions reproduced above enjoin that the "approval of the Institution which imparts the course of Diploma in Pharmacy by the Pharmacy Council of India...." is a pre-requisite for grant of registration. In other words, the course of study must have been duly approved by the Central Council and a student who has undertaken that course alone can be admitted to an approved examination which again must have the approval of the Central Council. Only thereafter a person who has undertaken the approved course of stud