The Pharmacy Act, 1948 governs pharmacy education and prevails over university statutes; the university’s rejection of seat intake increase based on its statute was unjustified.

ORDER :

N. Mala, J.

The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's request for increasing the intake of seats from 60 to 100 for the academic year 2024-25 in B.Pharm Degree, has filed the present Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.

2. The petitioner Trust was granted permission to start B.Pharm Degree Course vide G.O.Ms.No.191 dated 30.07.2024, with an annual intake of 60 students from the academic year 2024-25 onwards. The second respondent, Pharmacy Council of India, granted approval to admit 60 students for the academic year 2024-25 vide its decision dated 21.10.2024. The first respondent University granted provisional affiliation on 29.10.2024, for starting B.Pharm Degree Course to the petitioner college with an annual intake of 60 students from the academic year 2024-25. The petitioner Trust, in view of the increased demand for Pharmacy Course applied for increasing seats from 60 to 100 in appropriate form along with the requisite fee to the 1^st respondent University. However, to the petitioner's shock and surprise, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application vide impugned order dated 23.12.2024, for the increase in intake of seats from 60 to 10 in B.Pharm Degree Course. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the aforesaid relief.

3.According to the respondents, the petitioner Trust started B.Pharm Degree Course from the academic year 2024-25 and as the first batch of students admitted by the petitioner Trust, were yet to complete the Course, the petitioner's application could not be considered and hence lawfully rejected. The respondents relying on G.O.Ms.No.148, Health and Family Welfare (PME-2) Department, dated 24.04.2018, contended that there could be no increase of seats over and above the permitted strength that too without prior approval of the Government. As the petitioner Trust failed to obtain approval from the Government for increase in seats from 60 to 100 in B.Pharm Degree Course, the petitioner Trust's application was rightly rejected. The respondents therefore submitted that there were no merits in the Writ Petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the approval for increase and decrease in seats was in the realm of the second respondent and therefore, the respondent was bound to consider the petitioner's application. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Pharmacy Council of India Vs. Dr. S.K.Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarba Institute of Pharmacy and Others ” reported in (2021) 10 SCC 657 in support of his submission that the 1^st respondent University could not rely on serial no.58 of its statute to deny the petitioner consent of affiliation for increase in intake. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, University selectively applied serial no.58 of its statute to the petitioner Institution alone while granting permission to similarly placed institutions thus offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence the impugned order was liable to be set aside on the short ground of discrimination also.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 16.06.2020, in W.A.No.3534 of 2019, and also an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 10.11.2020 in W.P. No.14834 of 2020 in support of his case.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the contentions r