to empower the PCI to require the institution to obtain yearly approvals to conduct their courses. Besides, he also draws attention to Regulation 9(2)35 , which requires every person, or Pharmacy College, which seeks to obtain permission under Section 12(1) of the Act, to “submit a scheme as may be prescribed by” the PCI. The scheme in question, as is contained in Appendix A to the B. Pharm. Regulations, he points out, requires, among the conditions to be fulfilled by the institution, the stipulated workload of the faculty employed, which envisages Professors/Associate Professors working for 8 hours a week, Assistant Professors working for 12 hours a week and Lecturers working for 16 hours a week. These are all, therefore, he submits, attributable to yearly renewals, and the data has to be provided by the institution on year to year basis. The insistence, by the PCI, on the institution obtaining yearly/annual renewal of approval, therefore, according to him, is in sync with Section 12(3) of the Act read with Regulation 9 of the B. Pharm. Regulations [in the case of an institution running the B. Pharm. course]. The PCI is, therefore, according to Mr. Gupta, acting within jurisdiction in requiring the petitioner to furnish information regarding its institution and seek approval on a yearly basis. If the information is not provided, there would be no renewal of the approval granted to the institution. This, according to him, is essential to ensure enforcement of educational standards of the courses conducted by the IGNOU across the country, failing which it would be impossible, administratively, to maintain academic standards, which is one of the avowed objectives of the PCI,
