JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) Rule D.B.
(2) The petitioner claims to be an institution which is supposed to be imparting education to students inpharmacy. The prayer in the writ petition is that though the Pharmacy Council of India (respondent No. 3) has granted recognition to the petitioner nevertheless the Board of Technical Education., Delhi Administration (respondent No. 2) is not conducting the examination of the first year student’s which had .been .admitted by the petitioner.
(3) In the writ petition it is stated that vide notification of the 20th July, 1988 respondent No. 3 had, under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, approved the course of study of the petitioner up to the year ending 1990. Respondent No. 2 is not willing to conduct the examination of the students of the petitioner who had been admitted in the academic year 1989-90. The submission is that this action of respondent No. 2 is contrary to law, (4) In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has first relied on Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act which is as follows : "ANY authority in a State which conducts a course of study for pharmacists may apply to the Central Council for approval of the course, and the Central Council, if satisfied, after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said course of study is in conformity with Education Regulations, shall declare the said course of study to be an approved course of study for the purposes admission to an approved examination for pharmacists."
The aforesaid provision would apply when an institution like the petitioner applies to the respondent No. 3 for approval of the course of study conducted by it. Respondent No. 3, on such application being made, has to be satisfied that the course of study is in conformity with the Education Regulations and then if it is so satisfied it will accord its approval. Regulation 7, which is relied upon by the learned counsel, as prayed by respondent No. 3 is as follow : Regulation 7. “Approval of course of study : The course of regular academic study given under regulation 5 shall be conduced by an authority in a State, which shall be approved by the Pharmacy Council of India under sub-section (1) of Section 12 only if it provided adequate arrangements or teaching in regard to building, accommodation, equipment and teaching staff as specified in Appendix-B to these regulation,” Regulation 7 as is evident has obviously been framed in order to give effect to Section 12(1) of the Pharmacy Act.
(5) Neither Section 12(1) nor Regulation 7 deal with the question of affiliation of the educational institutions with an authority who is empowered to conduct the examinations. In the present case, it is not in dispute, that respondent No. 2 along with the Delhi University and Jamia Milia Hamdard are three institutions which have been recognised under the Pharmacy Act as being examining bodies. This recognition is granted under Section 12(2) of the Pharmacy Act and Regulation 12 of the Regulations. In the present case as is evident from the affidavit filed by the respondents provisional affiliation has been granted by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner from year to year. This affiliation was granted after an application had been filed by the petitioner with respondent No. 2 in 1986 for the grant of affiliation and thereafter applications were filed for extension thereof. The grant of affiliation is regulated by the affiliation rules which were approved by respondent No. 2 in its meeting of 23rd June, 1978. The said affiliation rules lay down various conditions which institutions seeking affiliation have to fulfill.
(6) In the present case there are some material facts which, we have no doubt, have been withheld by the petitioner from incorporating the same in its writ petition. On 20th February, 1989 a letter was written by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. In this letter it was stated that the provisional affiliation which had been granted would continue till the annual examination to be held in May/June 1989, It was made clear in this letter that so far as the extension of affiliation for the next academic session is concerned the same would not be granted if the deficiencies which had been pointed out had not been removed. This was followed by a public notice in the Hindustan Times on 13th July, 1989. This public notice was issued by respondent No. 2 and it was stated that the diploma course being conducted by the petitioner had not been affiliated to respondent No. 2 for fresh admissions of that year and anyone taking admission would be doing so at his own risk and responsibility. Thereafter a letter dated 17th August, 1989 was written to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that respondent No. 2 could not depute an observer for the proposed admission by the petitioner for the session 1989-90 because the petitioner institution had not been granted affiliation for the current academic year. The petitioner was required to deter the process of admission till the final decision regarding the affiliation for the academic session 1989-90 was granted. Despite this categorical letter the petitioner admitted a large number of students in the first year in the academic session 1989-90 without associating an observer of respondent No. 2. On 21st November, 1989 another letter was written bo the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was informed that the provisional affiliation already granted was extended by one more year limited to the purpose of permitting examination of the present second year students. It was further clarified that the extension of this provisional affiliation was not for the purpose of making fresh admissions for the academic session 1989-90. In complete disregard of this letter also the petitioner admitted student.
(7) As already noted, in the writ petition there is no mention of the letter dated 20th February, 1989 or the public notice of 13th July, 1989 or even the letters dated 17th August, 1989 and 21st November, 1989. in our opinion the petitioner is guilty of deliberately concealing material facts from its writ petition and on this ground alone not is entitled to any relief. That apart it is obvious from what has been narrated herein above the petitioner had sought affiliation with respondent No. 2 but in respect of the academic session 1989-90 onwards _no such affiliation had been granted which could have permitted the petitioner to admit any student in the first year of its course. The petitioner chose to admit the students despite warnings.having been issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner not to do so. The action of the petitioner in admitting the students while knowing’ fully well that it had not been granted affiliation as sought for clearly amounts to a criminal neglect on its part and by admitting the students the petitioner has jeopardised their future because the said students having made to undergo a course, at considerable expense to them, when the said course has not been granted affiliation by respondent No. 2. It is unfortunate that teaching shops like the petitioner which have no affiliation with the recognised examining body and charge large sums of money by hoodwinking the students are still allowed to flourish. We have been informed by counsel for the respondents that a complaint has been lodged with the police for taking suitable action against the petitioner.
(8) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ajaib Singh and another v. Haryana State Board of Technical Education Civil Writ No. 5996 of 1986 decided by a Single Judge of that court on 9th March, 19.87 that it-is not necessary to get affiliation with respondent No..2. Weare’-uftable to agree with this submission. It is no doubt true that. the Punjab & liaryana High Court in that decision hasobservedthat’onthe approval being granted by the Pharmacy Council the examining body is bound to conduct the examination, but it appears that no contention was raised before that court that it was, in law, necessary for an educational institution to be affiliated with an examining body. Just as medical colleges, though approved by the Medical Council of India, have to be affiliated with different universities and schools, though approved by the respective Directorates of Education, have to be affiliated with different examining bodies, similarly pharmacy institutions, like the petitioner, though approved by the Pharmacy Council, have to be affiliated with an examining body. As already indicated there are three examining bodies in Delhi, namely, respondent No. 2, Delhi University and Jamia Milia Hamdard. It is for this reason that the petitioner has sought affiliation with respondent No. 2. If the requirement of affiliation was not there then the petitioner could require the examination to be conducted by any three of the examining bodies. This is obviously not so. In fact, in the letter of 17th October, 1989writtenbyrespondent No.Jto respondent No. 2 it has been clearly stated that the affiliation of the petitioner institute with an approved examining authority is a pre-requisite for qualifying for registration as a pharmacists. A distinction has to be made between the approval, which is granted by the Pharmacy Council of India to the educational institution, and the affiliation which is granted by an examining authority to that institution. The approval is with regard to the course of study and the standard of education which is provided and that approval has to be granted by the technical body, namely. Pharmacy Council of India and the affiliating authority, like respondent No. 2. grants affiliation according to its own regulations. Affiliation having not been granted to the petitioner by respondent No. 2 in respect of the academic session 1989-90 in respect of the first year students the said students who were wrongly admitted by the petitioner in that academic year could not, in law, be permitted to take the examination conducted by respondent No. 2.
(9) The result of the aforesaid discussion would have been that one year’s of valuable time spent by the students oF the petitioner would have been wasted because of the wrongful acts of the petitioner in having admitted those students in the first year. We are happy to know that the Registrar of respondent No. 2, who is present in court, has stated that efforts will be made to see that as an exceptional case the students who have completed the course of study of first year with the petitioner and are eligible to take the examination will be allowed to take the examination to be conducted by respondent No. 2. All those students who pass will then have to seek admission in the second year in a recognised institution and that institution is only one, namely, Maharaja Suraj Mal Institute of Pharmacy and Technology, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is stated by the Registrar that those students who are successful in the first year examination will probably be granted admission in the second year in the said recognised institute. Those of the students who do not pass the examination will obviously have to seek fresh admission in an approved institution and it shall not be the responsibility of respondent No. 2 to promise such students, who have failed, admission in Maharaja Suraj Mal Institute. On the facts and circumstances of this case we would issue a direction to respondent No. 2 to the aforesaid effect, namely, that they should permit the students who are eligible to take the first year examination and thereafter respondent No. 2 should make efforts to see that successful candidates are granted admission in a recognised institution in the second year. Lastly, we do hope that. some action will be taken by the appropriate authorities against unapproved institutions purporting to give technical and other education knowing fully well that they have no authority or right to do so, thereby not only taking money from the students but also wasting their valuable time. We also prohibit the petitioner-institution from making any admissions without the approval of respondent No. 2. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.