1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos.15477/2012 & 16412-16528/2013 (EDN-RES)
C/W. WRIT PETITION No.23359/2012 (EDN-RES)
W.P.No.15477/2012: & 16412 – 528/2013
BETWEEN:
1. THE PRESIDENTPRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF PHARMACYNEAR GOVERNMENT GRADE COLLEGEHANUMANTHPURA KORATAGERETUMKUR DISTRICT 572129
2. AJAY SINGH. 21 yrsS/O KISHAN SINGH
3. ARUN H B , 21 yrsS/O H S BALARAMAIAH
4. BASAVARAJA U S, 23 yrs S/O SIDDANANJAPPA
5. BHARAT KUMAR SHRIMALI24 yrs, S/O MANGI LAL
6. BIRENDRA KUMAR UMAR, 22 yrsS/O BISHWANATH UMAR VAISHY
7. BRIJESH KUMAR SHARMA, 24 yrsS/O LAL BIHARI SHARMA
2
8. DEEPAK, 22 yrs S/O SUBHASH CHANDER
9. DEVENDAR KUMAR, 23 yrsS/O JAGADISH PRASAD
10. DEVESH KUMAR JHA24 yrs, S/O YOGENDRA JHA
11. G ARUNA . 21 yrsS/O G SATYANARAYANA
12. GIRIRAJ SHARMA, 24 yrsS/O TEJPAL SHARMA
13. HAYASHA . 20 yrsS/O H ABDUL MAZEED
14. HARILAL YADAV, 23 yrsS/O JAI RAM YADAV
15. HARISH KUMAR,22 yrs S/O BHURI SINGH
16. HASTI MAL S/O LACHCHHERAMAGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
17. HIMANSHU CHAUHAN , 22 yrsS/O BRIJMOHAN CHAUHAN
18. JANAM SINGH, 23 yrsS/O RAMNATH
19. MAHESHA M S/O MALLESHAPPAAGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
20. MEEN BAHADUR SHAH 24 yrs, S/O RAM AUTAR SHAH
21. NATHA RAM, S/O VIRAM RAM, 23 yrs,
3
22. POORNIMA S M, 20 yrs S/O MUDDANNA S K
23. PRASHANTH KUMAR H P 23 yrs, S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
24. RAKESH , 21 yrsS/O OM PRAKASH
25. ROBIN THAKUR, 23 yrs S/O HAJRI SINGH THAKUR
26. SANJAY SHARMA , 23 yrsS/O ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA
27. VED PRAKASH CHAUBEY,24 yrs S/O CHANDRA BHAN CHAUBEY
28. TAHA FALAH , 18 yrsS/O FATHI ALMARSOOMI
29. ZAID NEAMAH MUSLIM 19 yrs, S/O NEAMAH MUSLIM
30. YOUSIF RMAIDH 18 yrs, S/O RMAIDH
31. YASEER KHAMEES SHAKIR18 yrs, S/O SHAMEES SHAKIR
32. YALAA RASEL SAADON 18 yrs, S/O RASEL SAADOON
33. YOUSIFFALAAH KHAZAAL ALMALIKI19 yrs, S/O KHAZAAL ALMALIKI
34. WASIM QYAS ABBAS19 yrs, S/O QYAS ABBAS
35. TAQE MAJID SHAYYAL, 18 yrsS/O MAJID SHAYYAL
4
36. TAHA MOTHANA KAMIL18 yrs, S/O MOTHANA KAMIL
37. SAFA KAREEM THEJEEL18 yrs, S/O KAREEM THEJEEL
38. SAIF TAHA NAYYEF 18 yrs, S/O TAHA NAYYEF
39. SUFYAN ABDAL KAREEM MAHMOOD 19 yrs, S/O ABDAL KAREEM MAHMOOD
40. OTHMAN BURHAN ALI19 yrs, S/O BURHAN ALI
41. OMAR AHMED KHUDHAIR 19 yrs, S/O AHMED KHUDHAIR
42. OSAMAH QAYS ABDUL QADER 18 yrs, S/O ABDUL QADER
43. NOORALDEEN JUMAAH MADHI19 YEARS,, S/O JUMAAH MADHI,
44. MURTADHA THAAER SALMAN19 yrs, S/O THAEER SALMAN
45. MOHAMMED MUAYAD MEJBEL18 yrs, S/O MUAYAD MEJBEL
46. MOHAMMED SALAH MAHID AL NAJJAR18 yrs, S/O SALAH MAHDI AL NAJJAR
47. MOHAMMED SABEEH ABDUL BAQI ALSHAIBHI 19 yrs, S/O SABEETH ABDULBAQUI ALSHAIBHI
48. MOHAMMED SHAKIR MAHMOOD ALJABRI19 yrs, S/O SHAKIR MAHMOOD ALJABERI
49. MOHAMMED MUNEER ISMAIL18 yrs, S/O MUNEER ISMAIL
5
50. MAYTHEM AMER NASEER19 yrs, S/O AMER NASEER
51. MUAAMAR ALI FADIL ALBAYATI19 yrs, S/O ALI FADIL ALBAYATI
52. MAHMOOD HAMEED ABBAS ALSHAMAMMA19 yrs, S/O HAMEED ABBAS ALSHAMMA
53. MOHANAD SABEEH ABDUL RAZAQ19 yrs, S/O SABEEH ABDUL RAZZAQ
54. MUSTAFAH ABDULLAH HOMAD ALJABRI19 yrs, S/O ABDULLAH HOMAD ALJABERI
55. MUKHALAD MOHAMMED HATEM18 yrs, S/O MOHAMMED HATEM
56. MOHAMMED ABDULELAH DHNOON18 yrs, S/O ABDULELAH DHNOON
57. MOHAMMED HAMZA JAWAD18 yrs, S/O HAMZA JAWAD
58. MOHAMMED KHALID JARULLAH19 yrs, S/O KHALID JARULLAH
59. LAYTH ARKAN SABAH19 yrs, S/O ARKAN SABAH
60. KAMAL MAHMOOD KHUDHAIR19 yrs, S/O MAHMOOD KHUDHAIR
61. KARRAR TAHER ASAL19 yrs, S/O TAHER ASAL
62. IBRAHIM HILAL LATEEF19 yrs, S/O HILAL LATEEF
63. HASSAN THAMER HASSAN19 yrs, S/O THAMR HASSAN
6
64. HUMAN MOHAMMED HASAN19 yrs, S/O MOHAMMED HASAN
65. HANI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM19 yrs, S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
66. GHAITHA SAAD IBRAHIM19 yrs, S/O SAAD IBRAHIM
67. GHAZWAN YASIR HATIM18 yrs, S/O YASIR HATIM
68. BAKR YASEEN ABDUL JABBAR18 YEARS, S/O ASEEN ABDUL JABBAR
69. SADEQ RAHEEM ATIYAH18 yrs, S/O RAHEEM ATIYAH
70. ALLJAWAD KADHIM19 yrs, S/O JAWAD KADHIM
71. AHMAD MANSOOR KADHIM18 yrs, S/O MANSOOR KADHIM
72. ALI HAMID YASIR19 yrs, S/O HAMID YASIR
73. ALI AKRAM BERDAWAD18 yrs, S/O AKRAM BERDAWAD
74. AHMED KHALEEL IBRAHEM19 yrs, S/O KHALEEL IBRAHEM
75. ABDUL MUIZ WATHEQ WAHEED18 yrs, S/O MUIZ WATHEQ WAHEED
76. AHMED ABDUL KAREEM AHMED18 yrs, S/O ABDUL KAREEM AHMED
77. AABDULLAH SUHAIM LATEEF18 yrs, S/O SUHAIM LATEEF,
7
78. ABDULLAH MOHAMMED ATIYAH ALOBAIDI18 yrs, S/O MOHAMMED ATIYAH ALOBAIDI,
79. ALI HUSSEIN JASIM ALJANABIS/O ASIM ALJANOUT 19 YEARS,
80. AHMED MAKKI KHUDHAIRS/O MAKKI KGHUDHAIR,AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
81. AHMED MOHAMMED SABRIS/O MOHAMMED SABRIAGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
82. MOHAMMED RAAD HABEEBS/O RAAD HABEEBAGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
83. JAYASHANKAR YADAVS/O MAHENDERPRATAP YADAVAGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
84. NAVJOT SINGHS/O KISHAN SINGHAGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
85. SAYEED JAVEED AHMEDS/O SYED AFTABAGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
86. TARUNDEEP SINGHS/O JAGDEEP SINGHAGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
87. VASANTH KUMARS/O GOPALA B.V D PHARMA STUDENTS FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
88. RAVISHANKAR TIWARI S/O RAJESHWAR PRASAD TIWARI
8
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
89. AMAR SINGHS/O MATA DEEN, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
90. JALAM SINGHS/O NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
91. CHENA RAM, 26 yrsS/O BHURA RAM,
92. MANJUNATHA G H, 26 yrsS/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
93. MOHAMED RATHATHULLA23 yrs, S/O R. VALI BASHA,
94. SHWETHA C.N, 24 yrsD/O NARAYANAPPA,
95. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA, 24 yrsS/O. BHAIYALAL GUPTA,
96. RAHAMATH JABEEN, 28 yrsS/O. ZABIULLA SHARIFF,
97. RANJEET KUMAR MAURYA20 yrs, S/O. SREEKANT MAURYA,
98. RAGHAVENDRA R, 25 yrsS/O. RANGASWAMY,
99. ARUN KUMAR MAURYA18 yrs, S/O SHANKAR LAL MAURYA,
100. SHIVKESH YADAV, 18 yrsS/O MAHENDRA YADAV,
101. ANIL KUMAR B, 36 yrsS/O BASAVARAJU G B,
102. V. PRIYASINDHU
9
S/O VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,
103. PALLAVI HEMANT BHATAGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,D/O HEMANT BHAT G
104. KESHAVAMURTHY B CS/O BASAVARAJAIAHAGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
105. SHILPA H.JD/O JAYAPRAKASH H JAGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
106. YADAV ASHOK KHURMULLIS/O KHURMULLIAGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
107. PARIKSHIT DASS/O SHYAMCHAAN DASAGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
108. CHHAIL SINGHS/O PARBAT SINGHAGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
109. SHALINI GEHLOTS/O NMECHANDJI GEHLOTAGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
110. PRAJAPATI PARULBENS/O PRAJAPATI ARVINDBHAIAGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
111. RAGHAVENDRA RS/O THIMMEGOWDA HAGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
112. MUSARRAT JAHANS/O SHARFUDDINAGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
10
113. SHAIKH TABASSUM NIZAMUDDINS/O SHAIKH KHURSHEEDAGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
114. PANDEY JITENDER KUMARS/O PARASHANTH PANDEYAGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
115. RAKESH KUMARS/O PARASHANTH PANDEYAGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
116. PANKAJS/O RAM SAGAR YADAVAGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
117. JAMSHED AHMEDS/O NIZAMUDDIN SHAIKHAGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
118. MAHENDRA SINGHS/O DOULAT SINGHAGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 117 ARE STUDENTS AND STUDYING AT PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY NEAR GOVERNMENT 1ST GRADE COLLEGE, HANUMANTHAPURA KORATAGERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT 572129. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. ANJANEYA, ADVOCATE )
AND :
1. THE CHAIRMANBOARD OF EXAMINING AUTHORITYBANGALOREOFFICE AT C/O GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHARMACYSUBBAIAH CIRCLE, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD,
11
BANGALORE -27
2. THE MEMBER SECRETARYBOARD OF EXAMINING AUTHORITYBANGALOREOFFICE AT C/O GOVT. COLLEGE OF PHARMACYSUBBAIAH CIRCLE, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD,BANGALORE-560027.
3. THE DRUGS CONTROLLER OF KARNATAKADRUGS CONTROL DEPT.PALACE ROAD,BANGALORE – 01.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARYHELATH & FAMILY WELFAREDEPT. NO.341, VIDHANA SOUDHABANGALORE -01.
5. THE PHARAMACY COUNCIL OF INDIACOMBINED COUNCILS BUILDING, KOTLA ROAD,ALWAN-E- GHALIB MARG,POST BOC, NO.7020 NEW DELHI,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
6. ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF TECHICIAL EDUCATION7TH FLOOR, CHANMDRALOK BUILDING,JANPATH, NEW DELHI 110001REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
7. THE UNION OF INDIAMINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE ROOM NO.150, NAIRMAN BHAVN, NEW DELHI 110001REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
8. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND SERVICES4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,BANGALORE 560041
12
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 4, SRI S.S.HAVERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-5, SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-8 AND SRI OMPRAKASH, CGC & KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 )
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the meeting proceedings passed by the respondent No.2 impugned order dated 3.4.2012 against the petitioner dated 3.4.2012 vide Annexure-A.
W.P.No.23359/2012 :
Between :
PRIYADARSHINI COLLEGE OF PHARMACYNEAR GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,HANUMANTHAPURA,KORATAGERE TALUKATUMKUR DISTRICT. .. PETITIONER ( BY SRI KRISHNA S. DIXIT, ADVOCATE )
And :
1. UNION OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,ROOM NO.150-a, NIRMAN BHAWAN,NEW DELHI-110011.REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIACOMBINED COUNCIL'S BUILDINGTEMPLE LANE, KOTLA ROADALWAN-E-GHALIB MARG,P.O.NO.7020,
13
NEW DELHI-110002.REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT.
3. STATE OF KARANTAKA,BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPT.OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(MEDICAL EDUCATION)VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-1.
4. MEMBER SECRETARY,BOARD OF EXAMINING AUTHORITY,GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF PHARMACY BUILDING,3RD FLOOR, NO.2, P.KALINGA RAO ROADSUBBAIAH CIRCLE,BANGALORE-560027.
5. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,4TH `T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,BANGALORE,REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. .. RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI S.S.HAVERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, SMT.M.C.NAGASHREE, HCGP FOR R-3 AND 4, SRI N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 AND SRI KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 )
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 5.6.2012 issued by the R2 vide Annexure-E.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
O R D E R
Both these writ petitions are filed by the management of
Priyadarshini College of Pharmacy and the students who are in
14
all, 117 in number. (in W.P.No.15477 of 2012). The 1st
petitioner-college is running Diploma courses in Pharmacy.
Petitioners 2 to 118 (in W.P.No.15477/2012) have been admitted
in the college being run at Koratagere, Tumkur District. Alleging
some irregularities and illegalities against the petitioner-college
in conducting the examination i.e., malpractice and also by way
of impersonation, Examination Board sought to initiate action
against the students stating that these students have involved
themselves in malpractice by way of impersonation. In this
regard, the Pharmacy Council of India has taken a serious note of
the matter, so also the Council for Technical Education and the
Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Sciences. However, by
virtue of the interim order passed in these writ petitions, all the
students i.e., petitioners 2 to 118 in W.P.No.15477/2012, are
permitted to take up the examination, subject to the result of the
writ petitions. In this regard, there is a direction to the
respondents-authorities to permit the students to take up the
examination. However, with regard to announcement of the
result, nothing is stated in that regard at the inception. Now the
students are seeking for admission to the II year course for the
15
academic year 2013-14.
2. It appears, the Pharmacy Council of India is shown to
have initiated action against the college for cancellation of
approval of admission of the students for the academic year
2013-14. As such, the difficulty now faced by the management
and the students is that, they have been denied admission only
on some vague allegations and all the respondents-authorities
have taken serious view of the matter without there being any
flaw on the part of the petitioner-college and also 99% of the
students have not involved in malpractice nor impersonation.
According to the petitioners, although allegations are made
against six students, but in respect of only one student, there is
said to be impersonation. It is the further case of the students
that the decision taken by the Pharmacy Council of India to de-
recognise and cancel the approval of admissions for the
academic year 2013-14, is coming in the way of the students
seeking admission to the second year in the college.
3. The defense put forth by the petitioner-institution is that
the institution is being run at Koratagere and the examination
16
center is at Tumkur. As such, deliberately the management is
not involving or encouraging malpractice. It is the further case
of the institution that, the wrong pasting of photographs
collected from the students at the time of admission in the
register is due to some confusion and the same is not
deliberately done and in one or two cases, it might have
happened and the same has been subsequently corrected and as
such, it is only a clerical mistake done by some other person.
4. In so far as malpractice or impersonation is concerned,
it is the defense of the petitioner-college that the management
cannot be blamed except in case of deficiencies, if any to meet
out the infrastructure as per the norms prescribed by the
Council. Since the examination center was fixed at Tumkur,
which is 60 KMs. away from Koratagere and this being the
factual position, there may not be any scope for malpractice by
the management at a different center.
5. According to the petitioner-management, an enquiry
has been ordered against six students and it is said that only
17
one student is found involved in impersonation. But, in course
of time, because of some mistake or wrongful act done by one of
the student, the management cannot be blamed and even the
examination conducted may not be held to be not proper. In the
fact situation, in so far as petitioner-management as well as
students are concerned, it is for the respondent-University to
announce the results of all the students, except the student who
is involved in impersonation and to declare their results and to
issue marks cards.
6. It is to be further noted that, during the interregnum,
based on some allegations, may be some decision has been
taken by the Pharmacy Council of India and also simultaneously
by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Sciences regarding
admission to the petitioner-college is concerned. Of course, it is
an independent cause of action. None the less, the fact remains
that, while affixing the photographs of the students at the time
of admission, there may be some confusion or some clerical
mistake which has been committed by some other person. But,
solely on the ground that one student was involved in
18
impersonation, the decision taken by the Pharmacy Council of
India, to cancel the approval, based on the report submitted by
the Government of Karnataka, without hearing the petitioner and
without verifying the documents, is a harsh decision and it will
cause injustice to the college. The Pharmacy Council of India
has also directed the college not to admit the students for the
second year for the academic year 2013-14. The same will
cause hardship to the interest of those students who are not
involved in any kind of malpractice. Because of one person who
has committed mischief, other students should not suffer.
7. In that view of the matter, the respondent-University is
directed to declare the results of all the students who have
appeared for the first year examination, except one student who
was found to be involved in malpractice/impersonation. So also,
with regard to the decision take by the Pharmacy Council of India
not to approve affiliation in so far as 1st petitioner-college is
concerned, I find in the fact situation, the same is void, though it
is an independent cause of action. As the Diploma courses are
for three years, such declaration not to approve the admissions
19
taken by the Pharmacy Council of India is without any basis and
against the principles of natural justice. In that view of the
matter, the impugned order passed by the Pharmacy Council of
India is quashed. However, if need be, the Pharmacy Council of
India would look into the matter further and after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-college, take a decision in
accordance with law. If any irregularity is found, then the
Council is at liberty to take decision in that regard. Further, the
University is directed to permit the petitioners-students, except
one student who was found to be involved in malpractice, to be
admitted in the first petitioner's college for the academic year
2013-14 for the second year, pay fees and to pursue their
course. The petitioner-college is directed to collect the fees
from those students.
8. Further, it appears that the Drugs Controller of
Karnataka and the State Government are shown to have held a
preliminary enquiry and sent report to the Pharmacy Council of
India. As it transpires from the documents, there is said to be no
opportunity given to the 1st petitioner-management before
20
submitting such report. Based on an incomplete enquiry report,
that too, by not giving any opportunity to the management, the
Pharmacy Council of India has taken action against the
management. Thus, the act of the Drugs Controller of Karnataka
and the State Government in submitting the preliminary
enquiry report, without hearing the petitioner-management, that
too, based on some news paper report, appears to be illegal.
Hence, the decision taken by the Pharmacy Council of India vide
Annexure-`E' produced in W.P.No.23359/2012 is non est order
and so also, the recommendation made by the Government of
Karnataka based on some allegations appears to be without any
justification and the same is based on the news paper and other
news. Such being the case, there is no irregularity and illegality
committed by the petitioner-management and the students,
except one student who was found guilty of malpractice.
As such, based on the recommendation of the Government of
Karnataka, the Pharmacy Council of India has taken a hasty
decision to de-recognise the petitioner-college, the same is not
proper in the fact situation.
21
In that view of the matter, the report submitted by the
Government of Karnataka at Annexure-`C' and the decision taken
by the Pharmacy Council of India as at Annexure-`E' ((both
produced in W.P.No.23359/2012) are quashed. However, liberty
is given to the Drugs Controller of Karnataka and also Pharmacy
Council of India to hold fresh enquiry in future and to come to a
just conclusion. If there are any serious irregularities, they shall
be considered, that too, after hearing the affected persons.
Accordingly, Writ Petitions are allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bk/