| EQUIVALENT CITATIONS | AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 1910, AIRONLINE 2021 SC 199 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 15th APRIL, 2021 |
| COURT | HON’BLE SUPREME COURT |
| PETITIONER | VIIT PHARMACY COLLEGE |
| RESPONDENT | DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY |
| IMPORTANT PROVISIONS | |
| BENCH | JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY, JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, JUSTICE R.F. NARIMAN |
INTRODUCTION
In this case petitioner asked the court to order Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University and Another. The petitioners asked the court to order Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Technical University, to grant affiliation for Pharma Course for the 2020-2021 academic year. The petitioner also asked the university to organize special exams for Pharma students for academic year 2020-21 which was rejected by the respondent university consequently the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
FACTS
- Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University Respondent-1 on January 28,2020 Invited applications for affiliation for year 2020-2021. In response the Petitioner filed applications to sought affiliation from university for B. Pharma course for academic year 2020-21.
- The petitioner no 1 got approval from Pharmacy Council of India to conduct first year B Pharma Course for year 2020-2021 with admission limit up to 100 students. Meanwhile the petitioner no. 2 R.V Institute of Pharmacy also got similar approval from Pharmacy Council of India.
- On 15, May 2020 the respondent state of Uttar Pradesh brought up a policy on imposing restriction on number of Pharmacy college, according to policy one district can have only two Pharmacy college.
- Consequently, petition challenging the policy was filed in Allahabad High Court and the policy was later set aside by the court. Eventually conditional affiliation was granted by state government after taking into consideration the recommendations given by the affiliation committee.
ISSUE RAISED
- Whether the denial by the university to grant affiliation and restrain students from appearing in examination despite of approval by Pharmacy Council of India.
- Whether the State Government’s grant of conditional affiliation and subsequent conduct was valid and in compliance with legal norms.
CONTENTIONS BY PARTIES
- It was contended by the petitioner that despite of fact that the students of petitioner college was called at examination centre they were still not allowed to appear in exam. The petitioners also assert that students from one Zee College of Pharmacy were allowed to take the exam as a result of the ruling dated March 5, 2021.
- It was contended by the respondents that the University had authority and right to reject the application for affiliation as the colleges are fully complying with the standards set by university for affiliation.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court in its judgment allowed the petition filed by petitioners. The apex court referred to its previous judgment Dr. SK Toshiwal Educational Trust Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy, which determined that the filed of Pharmacy education was and organizations providing pharmacy education are required to follow the standards and guidelines given by Pharmacy Council of India.
The respondent university was ordered by the Supreme Court to grant affiliation to petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-2021 and students of those colleges should be allowed to appear in examination, considering the approval granted by Pharmacy Council of India and the state government’s conditional affiliation.
The ruling acknowledged petitioners’ rights based on existing orders and clearances and stressed the significance of abiding by Pharmacy Council of India standards.
ANALYSIS
This judgment lays emphasis on how important it is to follow the principles and guidelines laid by Pharmacy Council of India along with statutory requirements given by (Pharmacy Act 1948) when it comes to education, examination, affiliation. This case also represents judicial actions to guarantee compliance with the statutes and court orders, rights of students and educational institutions. The case also provides that in order to address administrative disparities that can affect educational institutes legal actions should be taken as soon as possible.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that the primary goal of this judgment is to protect the Petitioners rights by ensuring fair treatment in terms of education, affiliation, examination. This judgment also provide that the norms laid by Pharmacy Council India should be followed. It concluded in favour of the petitioners based on their documented approvals and court triumphs in earlier challenges, emphasizing the significance of abiding by established regulations in matters of education.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Palak Mehta, student of G.H.G Institute of Law, Ludhiana, Punjab Intern at Legal Vidhya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
