The court underscored the importance of adhering to established admission timelines for professional courses, rejecting claims of arbitrary actions by regulatory authorities in the absence of timely applications.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record.

1.1 An affidavit is sought to be filed in the Court bringing on record certain facts and events pertaining to the decision of the Apex Court, wherein extensions have been granted for completion of the admission process for the Academic Session 2025-2026, which is unsupported by an application seeking leave of the Court to file such an affidavit bringing on record the additional facts, which were placed before the learned single Judge. The said affidavit filed today in the Court, is taken on record.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner institution is an educational institution, which has been granted affiliation by the Gujarat Technological University for starting a new college for imparting D.Pharm course. For commencement of the said course, necessary approvals/recognition has been granted by the Pharmacy Council of India vide its decision dated 09.10.2025 with the intake of 60 students for the Academic Session 2025-2026.

3. The petitioner institution seeks to assail the action of the respondent No.2, namely the Admission Committee for Professional Courses (ACPC), Gujarat, in not allotting students to the petitioner institution. The prayer has been made before the learned single Judge to issue directions to the ACPC to allot the students to the petitioner institution against the intake of 60 for the Academic Session 2025-2026, in D.Pharm Course, inasmuch as, the petitioner institution was granted recognition by the Pharmacy Council of India prior to the cut off date, i.e. 30.10.2025, which was the last date for admission to the course for the Academic Session 2025-2026.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as soon as the petitioner institution got recognition from the Pharmacy Council of India, an E-mail dated 13.10.2025 was sent to the ACPC requesting it to include the petitioner institution in the list of colleges for counseling. The ACPC has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner in denying the permission to the petitioner college to participate in the admission process.

5. Testing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we may record that the learned single Judge in the judgment impugned has noted that the petitioner had preferred the writ petition on 13.11.2025, which was registered on 18.11.2025 and notices were issued therein on 21.11.2025. Even by the date, when the writ petition was presented before this Court, the last date of completion of the admission process, i.e. 30.11.2025 was already over. No explanation could be offered by the petitioner institution for not moving this Court for a period of one month even after getting recognition/approval on 09.10.2025 from the Pharmacy Council of India, or inaction of ACPC inspite of intimation by the E-mail dated 13.10.2025.

6. The learned single Judge has also noted the directions issued by the Apex Court contained in paragraph Nos. ‘41’ to ‘46.6’ of Parshvanath Charitable Trust vs. All India Council for Technical Education , reported in 2013 3 SCC 385, in paragraph No. ‘9’ of the impugned judgment, which reads as under :-

“9. Upon perusal of the record, and considering the submissions made by Learned Advocate Ms. Aishvarya, this Court noted the fact that that admissions to pharmacy councils, along with other technical courses, are governed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parshwana Charitable Trust (supra) In paragraphs 41 to 46.6 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as u