Case Note & Summary
These writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged Regulation 15 of the Education Regulations 91 of the Pharmacy Council of India and the consequent cancellation of admissions of the petitioners to the second year of the four-year degree course in Pharmacy. The petitioners had completed their Diploma in Pharmacy and sought direct admission to the second year degree course under the centralized admission process. The eligibility criteria, as per the admission brochure Rule 2.1 and the Pharmacy Council's Regulation 15, required that candidates must have passed the Diploma examination in first class with at least 60% marks in a single attempt. The petitioners had secured more than 60% marks in aggregate but had passed the examination in multiple attempts, having failed in certain subjects earlier. Their admissions were cancelled by the respondent college after the Directorate of Technical Education flagged the ineligibility. Prior similar writ petitions (W.P. No. 1775/2010 and W.P. No. 1776/2010) were dismissed by the same court, upholding the cancellation. In the present matters, the petitioners amended their petitions to also challenge the vires of Regulation 15, contending that the requirement of passing in a single attempt for first class was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory. They argued that it created an artificial classification between students who secured 60% in a single attempt and those who secured the same percentage but after multiple attempts, with no rational nexus to the object of meritorious admission. It was also contended that different states in India had different eligibility criteria, leading to discrimination among similarly situated students. The respondents, through an affidavit, defended the regulation and the cancellation, stating that the petitioners had misrepresented their class while applying online and were clearly ineligible as they had not obtained first class in the first attempt. The court heard the arguments and reserved judgment. The provided excerpt of the judgment text does not include the court's final analysis and decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Regulation 15 of the Education Regulations 91 of the Pharmacy Council of India, prescribing minimum marks for passing the Diploma examination and requiring a single attempt for first class, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; whether cancellation of admissions of the petitioners for not meeting the eligibility criteria is valid.
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (05) 17
WRIT PETITION NO. 2452 OF 2010 (along with W.P. Nos. 2453, 2454, 2455 of 2010)
A M Khanwilkar, R M Savant
P B Shah for Petitioners, S R Nargolkar for Respondents/State
Anasari Ziyaur Rehman Naimoor Rehman
Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir’s Samajshri Prashantdada Hiray College of Pharmacy, Directorate of Technical Education, State of Maharashtra, The Pharmacy Council of India
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging the validity of Regulation 15 of the Education Regulations 91 of the Pharmacy Council of India and the cancellation of admissions of the petitioners to the second year degree course in Pharmacy.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to have their admissions restored and the regulation declared unconstitutional; in the alternative, to quash the cancellation communications.
Filing Reason
The respondent college cancelled the petitioners’ direct second year admissions on the ground that they had not passed the Diploma in Pharmacy examination in first class in a single attempt, as required by the admission rules and the Pharmacy Council’s Regulation 15.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, similar writ petitions (W.P. No. 1775/2010 and 1776/2010) were dismissed by the same court, upholding the cancellation of admissions on the same ground.
Issues
Whether Regulation 15 of the Education Regulations 91 of the Pharmacy Council of India is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory.
Whether the requirement of passing the Diploma examination in a single attempt for first class, as a precondition for direct second year admission, has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Whether the cancellation of the petitioners' admissions based on Rule 2.1 of the Admission Rules read with Regulation 15 is legally valid.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners contended that Regulation 15 makes an irrational classification between students who secured 60% marks in a single attempt and those who secured the same percentage across multiple attempts, without any nexus to the object of meritorious admission; they argued that candidates should be allowed reasonable chances like in other examinations.
It was argued that different states have different eligibility criteria for direct second year admissions, leading to discrimination among similarly placed students; for example, Karnataka requires only 40% in aggregate, and Kerala requires 50% without the single-attempt condition.
The respondents submitted that as per the admission rules and Regulation 15, only candidates who have passed the Diploma examination in first class/first class with condonation in the first attempt are eligible; the petitioners had not met this condition and had misrepresented their class during the online application process, warranting cancellation of admissions.
Judgment Excerpts
Regulation 15 prescribes that only a student who has secured 60% marks in a single attempt in the Diploma of Pharmacy examination would be entitled to direct admission to the 2 nd year degree course in pharmacy.
The said Regulation has been challenged on the ground that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature, inasmuch as it discriminates between the students who have secured 60% marks in the single attempt and the students who have secured the same percentage but not in a single attempt.
The candidate securing 60% marks or above in aggregate in all subjects in a single attempt at the Diploma in Pharmacy (PartI) or Diploma in Pharmacy (PartII) examinations shall be declared to have passed in first class.
Procedural History
The petitioners, having secured admission to the second year degree course in Pharmacy, had their admissions cancelled by communications dated 1 February 2010 and 30 January 2010. They filed writ petitions challenging the cancellation. Subsequently, they amended the petitions to also challenge the vires of Regulation 15. The court noted that earlier similar petitions (W.P. No. 1775/2010 and 1776/2010) were dismissed, upholding the cancellation. After hearing arguments, the court reserved judgment on 19 April 2010 and delivered it on 7 May 2010. The provided excerpt of the judgment text ends before the court's final reasoning and order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Education Regulations 91 of the Pharmacy Council of India: Regulation 15
