Pt. Thakur Prasad Tripathi Kisan Mahavidyalay Thru. Manager Akhileshwar Nath Tripathi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10423 of 2025

¶3

Pt. Thakur Prasad Tripathi Kisan Mahavidyalay Thru. Manager Akhileshwar Nath Tripathi And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Tech. Edu. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., D.K. Singh Chauhan, S M Singh Royekwar

¶8

Court No. - 20

¶9

HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Badrish Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, Sri D.K.Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Sri Sumit Tahilramani, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶11

By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-

¶12

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh & Joint Entrance Examination Council (Polytechnic) Uttar Pradesh to include the name of the petitioners' institution in the counselling of D.Pharma course for the academic sessions 2025-26 as all the petitioners have been granted approval by the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi for academic session 2025-26, in the interest of justice."

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners/institutions applied for approval before the Pharmacy Council

¶14

WRIC No. 10423 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

of India, New Delhi of D.Pharma course in respect of the academic session 2025-26 and was accordingly granted approval. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner institutions were required to obtain affiliation from the Board of Technical Education after receiving the approval from the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi, as such they approached the examining authority for extension of affiliation in that regard.

¶17

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioner no.3 has approached the Board of Technical Education, (copy of Online affiliation application is contained as annexure no.2 to the writ petition) and deposited the requisite fee for grant of affiliation in respect of D.Pharma course for academic session 2025-26. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that no LOGIN ID has been issued in favour of petitioner no.3 despite the fact that the fee was deposited on 29.09.2025. He has vehemently argued that the respondent no.2 has issued a list of affiliated colleges for the purpose of counselling regarding the D.Pharma courses for the academic session 2025-26, but the name of petitioners/institution have not been displayed.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have also represented before the Board of Technical Education, U.P., Lucknow by requesting therein that name of petitioner's/institutions be included in the list of colleges for which the counselling has been scheduled.

¶19

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2, on the basis of instructions dated 08.11.2025 provided to him by the Secretary, Board of Technical Education, Lucknow, has submitted that petitioner no.2, namely, 'Kite School of Pharmacy & Medical Science, Ghat, Meerut' has already been permitted to participate in the counselling that is scheduled to be closed today i.e. 10.11.2025. He further contended that the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 are new college and the State Government has not issued any guidelines for the academic session 2025-26 enabling the petitioner nos. 1 and 3 to be eligible for participation in the ongoing counselling. Further, the petitioner no.1 has not even applied for affiliation nor is eligible for

¶20

WRIC No. 10423 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

participation in the ongoing counselling. The copy of the said instructions dated 08.11.2025 as placed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel before the Court is taken on record.

¶23

Confronting the aforesaid submission advanced by learned Additonal Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in an identical situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Ram Newaj Singh College of Pharmacy and others passed in Civil Appeal No(s)..../2025 (arising out of SLP (c) No.21757 of 2025) vide order dated 18.09.2025 directed the concerned authority to accord consideration to the institution. Relevant paras no.4 to 9 of the said judgement are as under:

¶24

"4. Some of the private colleges had approached the High Court contending that though they have applied for approval before the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), no decision was taken by the PCI on their application(s). Aggrieved thereby, the private colleges filed a writ petition relying on the order passed by this Court dated 09th May, 2025, vide which the Court considered the application(s) of some of the private institutions for grant of approval for the Academic Year 202526. By way of the said order this Court had granted extension of completion of approval process by the institution up to August 31, 2025 and appeals/compliances process till September 30, 2025. The Court also extended the period for completion of counselling till October 30, 2025.

¶25

5. In the present case, the appellant No.3 had already started counselling process from 27th June, 2025 in respect of 110 colleges, which were already approved by the PCI. The State had also contended before the High Court that a special counselling would be scheduled in August for all the institutions which would be granted approval by the PCI subsequently.

¶26

6. In spite of noting the aforesaid contention of the State, the

¶27

WRIC No. 10423 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

learned Single Judge has quashed the entire counselling process, which had commenced on 27th June, 2025.

¶30

7. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in Insofar as the quashing the entire counselling process. writ petitioners before the High Court are concerned, the State has taken ample care to safeguard their interest, inasmuch as in the event they were granted approval by the PCI, it had decided to hold a special counselling process.

¶31

8. In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 9th July, 2025 is quashed and set aside.

¶32

9. The counselling which was already held by the appellants from 27th June, 2025 and wherein the admissions were given to the students shall be regularized. The appellants shall go ahead with the counselling process in accordance with the schedule that may be notified by it."

¶33

Taking into consideration the facts as narrated herein above, since the counselling process in respect of the academic session 2025-26 is to end today i.e. 10.11.2025, the relief as prayed for in the present petition cannot be granted at this stage.

¶34

However, it would be in the interest of justice to issue direction to the respondent no.2 to look into the matter and take appropriate decision by passing a reasoned order with respect to the affiliation or otherwise of the petitioner nos.1 and 3, strictly in accordance with law within a maximum period of two weeks from today.

¶35

In the aforesaid terms, the petition is disposed of.

¶36

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶37

November 10, 2025

¶38

Renu/-

¶39

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pt. Thakur Prasad Tripathi Kisan Mahavidyalay Thru. Manager Akhileshwar Nath Tripathi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Pt. Thakur Prasad Tripathi Kisan Mahavidyalay Thru. Manager Akhileshwar Nath Tripathi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shalini Bajpai @ Sonal @ Shalini Devi vs Ashutosh Bajpai

Smt. Anshu Kumari Alias Anshu vs Ramesh Chandra

Mamta Upadhyay and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Vasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 5 Others

Mohd. Fahim Qureshi Vs Prin. Judge Family Court Distt. Ayodhya and Another

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others