Point of Law: S.10 of Pharmacy Act is only to prescribe minimum standard of education required for qualification as a Pharmacist.

JUDGMENT :

Being fully aware that the issues which this Court is now considering, have already been noticed and answered to substantial extent by another learned Judge, I deem brevity to be necessary in this judgment.

2. The petitioners in these two cases – they having been heard together, adverting to the similarity of the factual factors involved – are Educational Agencies, running Bachelor of Pharmacy (B.Pharm) course; and they made applications to the 'Pharmacy Council of India' (PCI), for approval to commence Diploma in Pharmacy (D.Pharm) Course.

3. The petitioners allege that even though their applications were fully competent, they were refused to be considered by the PCI, citing the sole reason that they were not accompanied by “a consent of affiliation” from the Examining Authority. They allege that even though they had applied for the same with the jurisdictional Examining Authority – which is stated to be the “Chairman, Board of D-Pharm Examination”, under the Director of Medical Education (DME) – said Authority did not respond; thus constraining them to make applications to the PCI, without enclosing the same. They assert that, in such circumstances, it was improper for the PCI to have rejected their applications; and thus pray that these Writ Petitions be allowed.

4. Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Ann Maria Francis – learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases, relied upon the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Principal, DM Wims College of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council of India [2022 (2) KLT 567], to argue that the requirement in the “Scheme for approval of D.Pharm Course under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948” and the “Education Regulations, 2020 for Diploma Course in Pharmacy” (hereinafter “The Scheme” and “The Regulations” respectively for brevity), to the extent to which it mandates the applicants to obtain “consent of affiliation” of the Examining Authority, has been found to be unnecessary, if not illegal. The learned Senior Counsel referred to Paragraph 15 of the said judgment and contended that, when this Court has already declared the law so conclusively, the PCI was wholly in error in rejecting his clients' applications on that sole ground.

5. In response, however, Smt.S.Krishna – learned Central Government Counsel representing the PCI, submitted that Principal, DM Wims College of Pharmacy (supra) has been taken up in appeal before a learned Division Bench of this Court, through W.A.No.1696/2021; but conceded that no interim order has been yet issued in it. Smt. Krishna then argued that there is a felicitous reason for the 'Scheme' to contain the requirement for the applicants to obtain the “Consent of Affiliation” from the Examining Authority; which is that, otherwise, once the PCI grants approval for the course, it might create a deleterious situation in future, should the said Authority either refuse or fail to conduct the examinations. She argued that this will put the students in peril; and, therefore, it is by way of abundant caution that the PCI has incorporated the said requirement in the “Scheme”. She thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

6. Smt.Parvathy K. – learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd respondent – DME, began saying that, though the said Authority or the Board of D-Pharm Examination (“Board”), have no objection in conducting the examinations should the PCI grant approval to the courses as requested by the petitioners, the fact remains that they did not give the “Consent of Affiliation” yet, because they were not approached through proper applications. She added that, however, the DME and the Board are willing to abide by any directions to be issued by this Court.

7. Smt. Parvathy Kottol then explained that the Examining Agency has certain responsibilities vested in them by the “Regulations”, namely, that said Authority is to provide: (a) adequate rooms with necessary furniture for holding written examinations; (b)