Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.1960 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 4.9.2019 IN W.P.(C).NO.19323/2019 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
THE CHAIRMAN, DALE VIEW COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND RESEARCH CENTRE PUNALAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 575. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, TECHNICAL SECTION, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 115. 2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEAR UDYOD BHAWAN, METRO STATION, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 011. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
4 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI. M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P.FOR R3 AND R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.2074/2019, WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 RP.No.1105 OF 2019 IN WA. 2074/2019 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2019 IN WA 2074/2019 & CONN.CASES OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO.4: ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANTH KUNJ, NEW DELHI-110 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER/DIRECTOR, AICTE REGIONAL OFFICE, AMBADY NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 016. BY ADVS. SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 3: 1 CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY KERALA CHEMISTS BHAVAN, MC NO.XXVI/617, CURZON ROAD, KOLLAM-691 013. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. R1 SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR) SMT. NISHA GEORGE R4 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI. M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P.FOR R2 AND R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-082020, ALONG WITH WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019, WA.2078/2019,
WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.2074 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.09.2019 IN WP(C) 33719/2018(L) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY KERALA, REG. NO.Q 622/81, 0 'CHEMISTS BHAVAN' MC NO.XXVI/617, CURZON ROAD, KOLLAM - 691 013, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, MOHANAKURUP A. N. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, LAL BAHADUR SASTRI SMRITI, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, BAL BHAWAN, MAN SINGH ROAD AREA, NEW DELHI, DELHI - 110001 4 THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASAAN KUNJU, NEW DELHI - 110067. R1, 2 SRI. M.A. ASIF SPL. GP SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, R3 SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASGI ADV. KUM.S.KRISHNA R4 BY ADV. SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR V., SC, ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION - AICTE SRI.JAYKAR KS SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.2078 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.9.2019 IN WP(C) 1679/2019(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: THE PRINCIPAL, SANJO COLLEGE OF PHARMACEUTICAL STUDIES, VELLAPARA, CHITHALI P.O., KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD- 678702. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, TECHNICAL SECTION, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110115. 2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NEAR UDYOG BHAWAN, METRO STATION, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110011. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 4 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. R1-2 SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASGI BY SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC R3 & 4 SRI. M.A. ASIF SPL. GP BY SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.2079 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.9.2019 IN WP(C) 36922/2018(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 KERALA STATE SELF FINANCING PHARMACY COLLEGE, MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.450/2004, BUILDING NO.191, AL-SHIFA HOSPITAL COMPLEX, P.B.NO.26, OOTTY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679332, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, RAJITHAN E.P.B. 2 NIRMALA COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, NIRMALA EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680307. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, LAL BAHADUR SASTRI SMRITI, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, BAL BHAWAN, MAN SINGH ROAD AREA, NEW DELHI, DELHI- 110001. 2 THE ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASSAN KUNJU, NEW DELHI- 110067. 3 THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA, COMBINED COUNCIL'S BUILDING, TEMPLE LANE, KOTLA ROAD, AIWAN-E-GHALIB MARG, POST BOX NO.7020, NEW DELHI- 110002. 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. 5 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASGI R1, R3 BY ADV. KUM.S.KRISHNA R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. R4 BY SRI.M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019, WA.2078/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.2081 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.9.2019 IN WP(C) 313/2019(L) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR.JOSEPH MAR THOMA INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (OWNED AND MANAGED BY MAR THOMAS MEDICAL MISSION), PALLICKAL P.O., KATTANAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 690503, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. SRI. M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P R1 BY SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019, WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WA.No.2111 OF 2019 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.9.2019 IN WP(C) 1505/2019(K) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER: WESTFORT HIGHER EDUCATION TRUST POTTORE M.G. KAVU P.O. THRISSUR 680 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE AND CHAIRMAN, SRI.K.M. MOHANDAS, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. KALIKANDAN MAMU. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 036.
2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 011. 3 PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA, COMBINED COUNCILS BUILDINGS, TEMPLE LANE, KOTLA ROAD, AIWAN-E-GHALIB MARG, POST BOX NO. 70210, DELHI 110 002. 4 ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, NELSON MANDELA MARG, VASANTHKUNJ, NEW DELHI 110 070, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. *5 KERALA UNIVESITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O. THRISSUR 680 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. *(R5 STRUCK OFF FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 6 LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. SRI.M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P FOR R1 & 2
SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASGI R3 BY SMT.GIRIJA.L., ADDL.CGSC R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.SAJITH KUMAR, SC, AICTE R5 BY SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCE R6 BY SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SC, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019, WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.10442 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER: WEST FORT HIGHER EDUCATION TRUST POTTORE, M.G.KAVU P.O., THRISSUR-680 581, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGER TRUSTEE AND CHAIRMAN, SHRI,K.M.MOHANDAS, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT SREENIDHI, SREENAGAR, WEST FORT, THRISSUR-680 004. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011. 3 THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA, NBCC CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR, PLOT NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTRE, MAA ANANDAMAI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 020. 4 LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. R1,2 SRI.M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P R3 BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA R4 BY SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN, SC, LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2608-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019,
WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).14618/2020(B), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.14618 OF 2020(B) PETITIONER: 1 DR.JOSEPH MAR THOMA INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH (OWNED AND MANAGED MAR THOMAS MEDICAL MISSION),PALLICKAL.P.O, KATTANAM,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690503,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 2 CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KERALA REG.NO.Q 622/81,'CHEMISTS BHAVAN' MC NO.XXVI/617,CURZON ROAD, KOLLAM-691013, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT.
BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE,KUMARAPURAM ROAD,CHALAKKUZHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. SRI.M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2608-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019,
WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14688/2020(I), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942 WP(C).No.14688 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER:
DALE VIEW COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND RESEARCH CENTRE PUNALAL P.O., POOVACHAL VIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695575, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.RIJI RAJENDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE RESPONDENT: THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KUMARAPURAM ROAD, CHALAKKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001. SRI.M.A. ASIF-SPL.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2608-2020, ALONG WITH RP.1105/2019, WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019,
WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, WP(C).10442/2020(E), WP(C).14618/2020(B), THE COURT ON 15-092020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
[ WA.1960/2019, WA.2074/2019, WA.2078/2019, WA.2079/2019, WA.2081/2019, WA.2111/2019, RP.1105/2019 in WA No.2074/2019, WP(C).10442/2020, WP(C).14618/2020 & WP(C).14688/2020 ] Dated this the 15th day of September 2020 Shaffique, J The appeals are filed by the writ petitioners in W.P. (C).Nos.33719/2018, 313/2019, 1505/2019, 1679/2019, 36922/2018 and 19323/2019.
2. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.33719/2018, 313/2019,
Council of India (for short PCI) for conducting Diploma Course in Pharmacy (D.Pharm) during the academic year 2018-2019 and the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.19323/2019 during the academic year 2019-
2020. Before starting the course, the petitioners were to obtain no
objection certificate (NOC) from the Examining Authority, the Director of Medical Education. NOC was denied for some of the petitioners and they were not included in the Centralised Allotment Process (CAP). Hence the writ petitions were filed challenging the denial of NOC and seeking for a direction to include them while allotting seats to D.Pharm course during the respective academic years.
3. The Government took up a contention that NOC cannot be
issued to the petitioners on account of the fact that large number of Colleges are mushrooming in the State. That apart, there was an unhealthy competition and commercialization of education at the risk of quality. Employment of those students is also a matter of great concern and therefore grant of NOC for starting any more D.Pharm course will not do any good to the society and is not in the larger interest of the State. Further it was contended that except two of the institutions/petitioners, none of the others had approval from the AICTE.
4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment held
that permission/approval of PCI under the Pharmacy Act, 1948 as well as All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 are mandatory requirements and therefore without the same, they are not entitled to start the respective courses. Accordingly, it was observed that in the absence of approval from AICTE, State Government is not bound to consider the application for NOC submitted by such institutions. However, it was made clear that if and when the approval is secured from AICTE, petitioners will be at liberty to approach the State Government seeking NOC. It is further observed that, in respect of the institutions which are having permission and approval from PCI and AICTE, their applications pending before the State Government seeking NOC shall be considered in accordance with law and before the admission process starts for the year 2019-20 and those Colleges shall be permitted to participate in the CAP. It was made clear that, if the State Government does not include such institutions in the CAP, they will be at liberty to carry out admissions to the remaining seats. It was also
held as under:
“I further make it clear that, those institutions or charitable societies which have not secured permission as well as approval from the authorities concerned are at liberty to carry out admissions only if they secure permission/approval in accordance with law or due to any changed circumstance.”
5. In W.P.(C) No.33719/2018 from which W.A.No.2074/2019 had
arisen, petitioner had initially sought for a direction to the State Government and the Director of Medical Education to issue the NOC to commence D.Pharm Course during the academic year 2018-19 on the strength of permission granted by the PCI as per Ext.P15 order. The permission was for intake of 60 students during the academic year 2018-19 for the conduct of 1st year. Government took up a contention that by Ext.R1(a) dated 28.11.2017 NOC cannot be issued. The writ petition was therefore amended challenging Ext.P18 order dated 28.11.2017 [Ext.R1(a)] issued by the Government. In Ext.P18, the Government had given reasons for not granting NOC. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are relevant which reads as under:
“4. Government is always committed to protect the academic interests, job opportunities and future of student community. The
statistics before Government is that so many seats in D.Pharm course in Government approved colleges have been lying vacant. At present 27 institutions are conducting D.Pharm Course and the job opportunities are very low when compared to B.Pharm pass-outs. Reckless sanctioning of new courses without assessing the educational need would lead to turbulence in Medical Education sector as now being occurred in the Engineering Sector. A responsible Government could not drag students towards an uncertain future. The petitioner's request for issuance of NOC was rejected earlier not as a policy matter but evaluating the statistics of the current availability and vacancy of seats. Therefore, the decision was not as part of a blanket policy but on the strength of realities.
5. Government have examined the application submitted by the
petitioner. As the admission for the academic year 2017-18 is almost came to a close and the preliminary statistics shows that many D.Pharm seats are remaining unfilled, it can be construed that there is no need of starting D.Pharm course in any College for the next academic year, 2018-19. In view of the facts stated, the application submitted by the petitioner for the issuance of NOC for starting D.Pharm Course at their college for the academic year 2018-19 does not merit consideration, hence is hereby rejected.”
6. By an interim order dated 18.10.2019 in W.A.No.2074/2019
and connected cases, this court directed the PCI and AICTE to conduct a joint inspection. Yet another interim order was passed on 22.10.2019, wherein it was observed that as far as Government institutions were concerned, they had only approval from PCI and therefore there was no justification on the part of the Government in taking a stand that AICTE approval is required for granting NOC by the Government. Accordingly, the following directions had been issued at paragraphs 22 to 24 of the said interim order:
“22. In the light of the above discussion and taking note of the fact, that notwithstanding approval from AICTE, Government institutions which have PCI approval have been permitted to take part in the process of allotment, ignoring the claims of other private institutions which have similar PCI approval and taking note of the list extracted supra, we are of the view that private institutions run by the appellants which have PCI approval are also be included in the list and sent to the Allotment Agency or Director of Medical Education, as the case may be, and the list be published in the official portal of the 6 th respondent Allotment Agency so as to enable the candidates to exercise their option for admission to Government/private institutions. Thereafter, the Allotment Agency is directed to prepare the allotment list and accordingly inform the candidates/institutions.
23. The issue as to whether approval from AICTE viz-a-viz PCI is
required is yet to be decided. The Director of Medical Education and the Allotment Agency/Private Educational Institutions are directed to make known in the order of allotment that provisional admission if any granted to the candidates, is only an interim arrangement, as per the directions of this court and subject to the outcome of the instant writ appeals.
24. By this order, we also make it clear that candidates allotted for
provisional admission to the private institutions, will not have any right to seek for equity, and their provisional admission, depends upon the outcome of the writ appeals, if ultimately the appellants do not succeed in the writ appeals.”
7. AICTE, filed R.P.No.1105/2019 to review the said order dated 22.10.2019 on the ground that sufficient time was not available to conduct the inspection and that apart, the time for approval had already expired.
8. W.A.No.2081/2019 arises from the judgment in W.P.
(C).No.313/2019, wherein the request for NOC was rejected by the Government as per order dated 19.4.2018 (Ext.P7), observing that as per the CAP held in the year 2015, 123 seats out of 815 remained vacant for want of eligible applicants and the job opportunity is very bleak.
9. W.A.No.2111/2019 arises from W.P.(C).No.1505/2019. They
challenged Ext.P10 by which the Government refused NOC as per its letter dated 22.11.2018 on the ground that seats in D.Pharm and B.Pharm are lying vacant for want of candidates in various colleges in the State. The petitioner had produced a list as Ext.P11 in order to indicate the total number of seats available in D.Pharm course in the Government and Self Financing Colleges in Kerala, and there were no vacant seats.
10. W.A.No.2079/2019 arises from the judgment in W.P.
(C).No.36922/2018. In the said case, the petitioner is an Association of Kerala State Self Financing Pharmacy College Management. They sought for a declaration that the inclusion of Diploma Course in a hand book published by AICTE is unauthorized and for other consequential reliefs.
11. W.A.No.1960/2019 arises from W.P.(C).No.19323/2019. In
this case also, the petitioner sought for a direction to the Government to grant NOC for conducting the D.Pharm course during the academic year 2019-20 and during the following years. The petitioner had produced Ext.P7 Government Order dated 21.11.2018, by which the Government had given sanction for 20 colleges during the academic year 2018-19, to conduct D.Pharm course subject to the condition that AICTE approval has to be obtained before the commencement of the next academic year. On behalf of the Director of Medical Education, Lal Bahadur Shastri Centre for Science and Technology has been designated as the authority for allotment of students to the Diploma Course.
12. W.A.No.2078/2019 arises from W.P.(C).No.1679/2019. The petitioner in the said case sought for quashing Ext.P4 dated 30.7.2018 by which the Government had rejected the request for permission to start D.Pharm Course.
13. W.P.(C).No.14618/2020 had been filed by the appellants in
W.A.No.2081/2019 and W.A.No.2074/2019. They sought for a direction to register the students as per Exts.P5 and P6 without NOC of the Government and also for a direction to permit the students admitted by the petitioners to appear for the examination conducted by the respondent by issuing valid certificate. In the said writ petition it is stated that though the PCI had granted approval, the Government was not granting NOC based on an alleged policy decision and that it requires approval from AICTE. Reference is made to Ext.P3 by which several Self Financing institutions were permitted to conduct Diploma Course with the condition that they shall produce AICTE certificate within one year before the next academic year. It is however submitted that as per the interim order dated 22.10.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1960/2019 and connected cases, 25 students were allotted to the 1st petitioner College. 21 students were admitted to D.Pharm for the academic year 2019-20 and 3 under the management quota, the list of which is Ext.P5. The 2nd petitioner admitted 18 students in the Government College and 5 students in the management quota and the list is Ext.P6. It is in the said circumstances that they sought for a direction to permit the students to write the examination.
14. W.P.(C).No.14688/2020 has been filed by Dale View College
of Pharmacy who is the appellant in W.A.No.1960/2019. They have also approached this Court seeking reliefs similar to W.P. (C).No.14618/2020. Ext.P4 in the said case are the names of the students admitted pursuant to the interim order dated 22.10.2019 in W.A.No.1960/2019 and connected cases. By Ext.P4, 22 students were admitted in the Government quota and 9 students in the management quota. Exts.P4 and P4(a) are the letters of allotment. These admissions were made during the academic year 2019-20 for which permission/approval had been given by the PCI as per Ext.P1.
15. W.P.(C).No.10442/2020 has been filed by the appellant in
W.A.No.2111/2019 seeking for a direction to the Director of Medical Education to consider Exts.P12 and P14 and conduct inspection to issue Examining Authority Affiliation. The petitioner intended to start Diploma course in the year 2019-20 which was permitted by the PCI as per order dated 11.6.2019 (Ext.P3). Since the respondent did not issue the NOC, the approval was withdrawn by PCI, against which petitioner filed an appeal as Ext.P15. Direction has also been sought to the PCI to reconsider Ext.P15 appeal and provisionally grant permission to conduct admission to the new batch for the academic year 2020-21. Ext.P12 is an e-mail issued by the petitioner to the Director of Medical Education to provide affiliation. A similar reminder has been made as per e-mail dated 21.4.2020 (Ext.P14).
16. As already stated, two contentions were raised by the
Government for denying NOC to these Colleges for conducting D.Pharm course. One such contention was that they did not have AICTE approval. This issue has now been decided by the Apex court in its judgment in Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy (2020 SCC Online SC 296). The Apex Court held that for conducting Pharmacy education, the norms and regulations set by PCI under the Pharmacy Act alone need be followed by the concerned institutions and that AICTE approval is not required.
17. In the light of the aforesaid law laid down by Apex Court,
the contention of the State Government that the approval of AICTE is required does not stand good and to that extent, the judgment of the learned Single Judge also is to be set aside.
18. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/
petitioners would submit that the Government cannot deny NOC and the said denial amounts to violation of their fundamental right to conduct the course. The only requirement is the approval of PCI, which they have obtained and now the Government cannot refuse NOC. Students were admitted pursuant to the interim order dated 18.10.2019 and connected cases. Appropriate orders should therefore be issued to direct the Government to issue NOC and to register the students to write the examination.
19. Learned Special Government Pleader Sri. M.A.Asif however
would submit that the policy of the Government is to restrict the courses on account of the large mushrooming of Colleges, that there is unhealthy competition between the Colleges and seats are not being filled up and even those who passes out are remaining jobless are factors which had been considered by the Government and therefore to avoid such instances, new courses are not being permitted. As per the instruction issued by the PCI, courses are approved subject to submission of consent of affiliation of Examining Authority and it is specifically indicated that no admission shall be made without submission of consent of affiliation of Examining Authority to PCI. It was further indicated that in case the consent of affiliation of Examining Authority is not obtained and submitted to PCI before making admissions, the approval granted by PCI shall be deemed to be withdrawn. The contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that though AICTE approval is not required, still in the absence of any affiliation with the Examining Authority, none of these institutions can admit students and the permission granted by the PCI will have no relevance.
20. Though the above argument is attractive, the learned
Government Pleader was unable to point out any Government Order, rule or regulation which mandates the respective colleges to obtain affiliation and the procedure to be adopted to obtain such an affiliation. Until now, as seen from the records, the colleges were requesting for the NOC from the Government to start the courses, after approval by PCI and AICTE. Government had also issued permission for 20 colleges in the Government and self financing sector to conduct courses during the academic year 2018-2019 as evident from Government order dated 21.11.2018 (Ext.P7 in W.P. (C).No.19323/2019). Those colleges who did not have AICTE approval were directed to produce the same before the next academic year. The allotment is made by CAP, which as per Government Order dated 22.11.2018 is done by LBS Centre. What we find is that there is no mechanism or procedure in place for grant of affiliation. Therefore, Government cannot contend that the Colleges should have obtained affiliation prior to making allotment process.
21. But still, a practice was being followed by the Government
by issuing NOC to the Institutions for the purpose of conducting various courses, for allotment of students, for conducting examinations, declaring results etc. Probably, once the NOC is issued by the Government, the Examining Authority being the Director of Medical Education, would permit the allotment of students and register them for examination which could be termed as affiliation, as envisaged in the conditions prescribed by the PCI.
22. The only question that is required to be considered is
whether, Government could bring in any policy to deny the right of a citizen to start an educational institution. Learned Government Pleader submits that it is the policy of the Government, not to permit mushrooming of colleges. First of all, there is no such policy, but of course while denying NOC, the Government has stated so. The question is whether such a policy amounts to reasonable restriction as contemplated under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar V. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet & Others (2018 SCC Online SC 2277). That was a case in which the Apex Court was considering the effect of Section 20 of the Telengana Education Act which inter alia provided that the competent authority shall, from time to time, conduct a survey as to identify the educational needs of the locality under its jurisdiction and any educational agency applying for permission has to satisfy the authority concerned that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. The Government after conducting a study during the academic year 2017- 18 observed that there was an imbalance of seats in various disciplines and made a recommendation to the AICTE to declare a holiday on the establishment of new technical institution for the academic year 2018-19. The University regulations mandated that the concerned establishments, shall obtain a no objection certificate before starting a course. The question considered by the Apex Court was whether University is bound to give NOC in a local area, irrespective of whether institutions are not required in an area and thereby promote mushrooming growth of institutions and whether the provisions of State Act, 1982 is repugnant to AICTE Act. After referring to the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute [(1995) 4 SCC 104] and Jaya Gokul Education Trust v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Higher Education Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala [(2000) 5 SCC 231], the Apex Court held that there was no repugnancy between AICTE Act and the regulations framed thereunder and the Telengana Education Act. It was observed that in the absence of guidelines or norms framed to check the growth of institutions by AICTE, the University cannot be deprived of considering the said aspect. In that case it was found that the State Government has informed AICTE about the alarming increase in the number of technical educational institutions in the area in question and the imbalanced growth. It was found that the decision of the State/University was based on an objective consideration of the data and could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever. It was therefore held that the policy decision of the State/University cannot be said to be illegal and on that basis, the decision of the University taken in terms of Section 20 of the Telengana Education Act, 1982 was upheld. The aforesaid judgment is distinguishable on facts itself. There the regulation was on the basis of a legislation. It was held in paragraphs 13, 14 & 16 of Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeet & Others (supra):-
13. A bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of section 20(1)
makes it clear that the survey is conducted so as to identify the educational needs of the locality would definitely include within its ken how many institutions are operating in the area and whether there is any further requirement of opening educational
institutions/new courses in existing colleges, and it is also imperative under section 20(3)(a)(i) that educational agency has to satisfy the authority that there is a need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality. In case there are already a large number of institutions imparting education in the area the competent authority may be justified not to grant the NOC, for permitting an institution to come up in the area.
14. The provisions contained in section 20 are wholesome and
intend not only to cater to the educational needs of the area but also prevent the mushroom growth of the institutions/courses. In case institutions are permitted to run each and every course that may affect the very standard of education and may ultimately result in sub-standard education. There is already a paucity of well-qualified teachers in a large number of institutions and the available seats in Pharmacy course in the Hyderabad city are remaining vacant every year in spite of the reduction in a number of seats. It had not been possible to fill up the available vacancies due to non-availability of students. Thus, it is apparent that when 30 institutions in Hyderabad city are already running Pharmacy course, the refusal to grant NOC by the University was wholly justified. 15……..
16. In Government of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society (supra), the
Court considered the validity of section 20 of the Act of 1982 vis- à-vis section 10 of AICTE Act of 1987 and observed that the two provisions are not repugnant to each other and they operate in different fields. The object and purpose of two enactments had been considered by this Court and it observed that if there are more colleges in a particular area, the State would be justified in not granting permission to one more college in that area. Entry 25 of the Concurrent List gives power to the State Legislature to make laws regarding education, including technical education. The AICTE Act deals with the general power of Parliament for coordination, determination of standards in institutions for higher
education or research and scientific and technical educational institutions and Entry 65 of List I deals with the union agencies and institutions. The State has the competence to pass such legislation and Section 20 of the Act of 1982 is for the welfare of the State.
23. Though it could be stated that in the Pharmacy Council of
India Act, there is no provision to check the need for educational institutions in a particular area, the State Government has not framed any law to make such restrictions in Pharmacy Education. The law in this regard is well settled. The Constitution Bench in T.M.A.Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8 SCC 481] has held that Art.19(1)(g) confers upon all the citizens to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business and that establishment and running of an educational institution has to be regarded as an occupation, subject of course to reasonable restrictions in terms of Art.19(6). Art.19(6) reads as under:-
“(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.”
24. In Khoday Distilleries Ltd and Others v. State of
Karnataka and Others [(1995) 1 SCC 574], the Apex Court had occasion to consider as to what is 'law' in terms of Art.19(6) of the Constitution. After referring to Article 13(3)(a), it was held that the word 'law' includes subordinate legislation as well, so long as such legislation is not in violation of any provisions of the Constitution.
25. A similar view had been taken by one among us (myself) in
judgment dated 21/12/2016 in WP(C) No. 24872/2016 & connected
cases [Dream Land Estate v. State of Kerala and Others (ILR 2017 (1) Kerala 887)]
26. The aforesaid proposition is again well stated in State of
Kerala and Others v. K.M.C.T.Polythechnic College, Mamapra (MANU/KE/1255/2017). In the above case, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the admission to polytechnic courses which are governed by All India Council for Technical Education Act,
1987. In that matter also, the role of the State Government was to
grant certificates in relation to the vocational courses and to conduct examinations. That was also a case in which State Government refused to sanction the courses thus depriving the benefit of approval granted by the Central Council. In that case also, the Government took up a contention that a policy decision had been taken not to have any new courses. While considering the said contention, this Court held as under:-
“24. The first thing we would like to notice is that the right to establish an educational institution like the Polytechnic is no more the prerogative of the State nor a privilege to be conferred by the State, for, this matter has now been settled by Eleven Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) wherein, it has been held that setting up of education institution comes within the expression “occupation”, as contemplated under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and it is a part of fundamental right. Thus, being a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution, but by law and not by executive fiat.
25. A fundamental right cannot be completely abrogated by a
State much less by a simple policy decision. What we have here is the State's policy decision for a complete blanket ban on establishment of new Polytechnics, thus totally abrogating the fundamental rights. This is impermissible, especially when, we look to the Constitutional scheme wherein, the right to grant approval for establishing such a technical institution is reserved by law to the Central Council under the Central Act and only the views of the State may be taken into consideration by the Central Council for the said purpose. The policy of the State Government dated 22.08.2016, the communication of the Government to the Central Council dated 06.10.2016 and the order passed in relation to the M.G.M. Polytechnic College, the first writ petitioner, would show that they are not based on any particular deficiency in relation to any particular technical institution sought to be set up. But, it is based only in furtherance of a general policy totally banning the establishment of new institutions in the State and that too, on the grounds of alleged fall in standards, in general, as perceived by the State, which, as per the Central Act, is the responsibility of the Central Council. Having
said so, we would now refer to some of the judgments in this regard.”
27. We do not think that any further authority is required to
substantiate the fact that State cannot have a blanket ban on establishment of new colleges/courses unless it is regulated by a law as envisaged in terms of Art.13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India and amounts to reasonable restriction within the framework of Art.19(6). No such material is available to issue any such restriction for the conduct of courses which has been permitted by the Pharmacy Council of India.
28. In the said circumstances, we are inclined to quash the
orders passed by the respondents denying the NOC. The colleges are entitled for NOC for conducting the course during the academic years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 as the case may be and the Government is liable to issue the same. The students who were admitted to the D.Pharm Course during the academic years 2018-19 and 2019-2020, pursuant to interim order dated 18/10/2019 in WA No. 2074/2019 & connected cases are to be permitted to register for the examination and they should be permitted to write the examination.
29. As far as WP(C) No. 10442/2020 is concerned, the approval
was granted by the PCI for the academic year 2019-2020, but the same had been withdrawn, against which an appeal has been filed. The only direction that could be granted in the case is to direct PCI to consider Ext.P15 appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a specified time.
30. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, these appeals and writ petitions are disposed of as under:
(i) W.A.Nos.1960, 2074, 2078, 2079, 2081, 2111 of 2019 are
allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the light of above judgment, R.P.No1105/2019 in WA No.2074/2019 does not survive for consideration and accordingly the same is dismissed.
(ii) The writ petitions are allowed as under:-
a) WP(C) Nos. 14618/2020, 33719/2018 & 313/2019:- Ext.P18 in WP(C) No.33719/2018 and Ext.P7 in WP(C) No.313/2019 are quashed. The Government shall issue No objection certificate to the petitioner Colleges for conduct of course during the academic year 2018-19 and shall permit the students admitted by them as evident from Exts.P5 and P6 in W.P.(C) No. 14618/2020 to register for the examination and to continue the studies. b) WP(C) No. 1505/2019 is allowed. Ext.P10 is quashed. Government shall grant NOC to the petitioner college for conducting D.Pharm course during the academic year 2018-19. The students admitted as per interim order dated 18.10.2019 in W.A.No.2074/2019 and connected cases shall be permitted to register for the examination and to continue the studies. c) WP(C) No. 1679/2019. Ext.P4 is quashed and the Government is directed to grant NOC to the petitioner college for conducting D.Pharm Course during the academic year 2018-19. The students admitted as per interim order date 18.10.2019 in W.A.No.2074/2019 and connected cases shall be permitted to register for the examination and to continue the studies. d) WP(C) Nos. 19323/2019 & 14688/2020 are allowed. The Government shall grant NOC to the college for conduct of the D.Pharm courses for the academic year 2019-20 and the students mentioned in Exts.P4 and P4(a) in WP(C) No. 14688/2020 shall be permitted to register for the examination and to continue their studies. e) WP(C) No. 10442/2020 is partly allowed. PCI shall consider Ext.P15 appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Government shall grant NOC to the petitioner subject to the decision of PCI. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/- GOPINATH P. kp/Rp True copy JUDGE P.A. To Judge APPENDIX OF RP 1105/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.10.2019 IN W.A.NO.2074 OF 2019. APPENDIX OF WA 2111/2019 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A-I A TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTED CANDIDATES ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL. ANNEXURE A-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR SANCTIONING EXAMINING AUTHORITY AFFILIATION FOR CONDUCTING D.PHARM COURSE WHICH WAS FORWARDED BY AN E-MAIL DATED 13.4.2020.
ANNEXURE A-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL. ANNEXURE A-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 20.4.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21.4.2020 SUBMITTED THROUGH E-MAIL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL BEARING NO.WHET/WCP/PCI/201/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.4.2020. ANNEXURE A-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL DATED 27.4.2020. ANNEXURE A-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, G.O.(RT) NO.2599 OF 2019/H&FWD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 28.10.2019. ANNEXURE A-9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE 328TH DECISION OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4TH/5TH JUNE, 2020 BY WHICH APPROVAL IS GRANTED TO THE HOLY GRACE ACADEMY OF PHARMACY, THRISSUR AND HINDUSTAN COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, KOTTAYAM.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10442/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEARING NO.WPC/2018/28 DATED 10.08.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEARING NO.WHET/WCP/2018/29 DATED 10.08.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEARING NO.WPC/2018/45 DATED 04.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEARING NO.WPC/2018/46 DATED 04.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION/DECISION BEARING NO.B3/23776/2018/DME DATED 22.11.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF PHARMACY COURSE IN KERALA PUBLISHED IN GOVERNMENT WEBSITE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.09.2019 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC NO.1505 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 22.10.2019 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2111/2019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR ALLOTMENT OF
THE STUDENTS ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND 4TH RESPNDENT BEARING NO.WHET/WCP/DME/88/2019 DATED 24/10/2019 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTED CANDIDATES ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXAMINING AUTHORITY AFFILIATION FOR CONDUCTING D PHARM COURSE WHICH WAS FORWARDED BY AN E MAIL ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/4/2020
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED NIL EXHIBIT P13(a) TRUE OCPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 20.04.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER REQUEST DATED 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COYP OF THE APPEAL BEARING NO.WHET/WCP/PCI/201/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 24.04.2020 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL DATED EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR THE CONDUCT OF D PHARM COURSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.WHET/WCP/DME/137/2019 DATED 20.4.2019 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, GO (Rt) NO.2559/2019/H & FWD DATED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 28.10.2019 EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE 328TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14618/2020 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HELD ON 4TH DECEMBER 2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3458/2018/H&FWD DATED 21.11.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 0CTOBER 22,2019 IN W.A.NO.2079 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS ADMITTED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S COLLEGE EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS ADMITTED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE 106TH CC MEETING OF THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA HELD ON 9TH & 10TH OF APRIL 2019. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 03.07.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.12297 OF 2020. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14688/2020 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
ORDER OF APPROVAL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO.3458/2018/H&FWD DATED 21.11.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED OCTOBER 22, 2019 IN W.A.NO.2079 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS ADMITTED TO GOVERNMENT QUOTA OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF STUDENTS ADMITTED TO MANAGEMENT QUOTA OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE.