The Pharmacy Act, 1948 prevails over university statutes, and restrictions imposed by the university on increasing student intake are not sustainable if they contradict the Act's provisions.

Headnote:(A) Pharmacy Act, 1948 - Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University (Affiliation of Pharmacy Colleges) Statutes - Increase of intake in B.Pharm Degree Course - Petitioner sought to increase seats from 60 to 100 but was denied based on university statute requiring completion of the first batch - Court found that the statute cannot impose restrictions not present in the Pharmacy Act, which governs pharmacy education. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 15)

(B) Discrimination - Petitioner argued that the university applied its statute selectively, violating Article 14 of the Constitution - Court ruled that the university's refusal to grant consent for increase in intake was not sustainable as it contradicted the norms established by the Pharmacy Act. (Paras 4, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner Trust was granted permission to start a B.Pharm Degree Course with an intake of 60 students but sought to increase it to 100 due to demand. The university rejected this application citing its statute.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the university's reliance on its statute was misplaced as the Pharmacy Act prevails in this domain, and ordered the university to grant consent for the increase.

Issues: Whether the university's refusal to increase seats was justified and whether it violated the principle of non-discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Pharmacy Act governs pharmacy education, and the university cannot impose its own statutes that contradict this Act.

Result: Writ Petition allowed.

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 raised in the counter affidavit.

7. Heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

8.The impugned order dated 23.12.2024, reads as follows:

“L.r. No. Afin. 1(4)/26677/2024

Dated: 23.12.2024

Thiruvalluvar Aandu - 2055

The Chairman,

To Erode Builder Educational Trust,

EBET Knowledge Partk,

Erode Road,

Nathakadaiyur -638 108.

Kangeyam Taluk, Tiruppur District.