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/