Allowed

Bablu Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Aug 2010CWJC/5014/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ application challenged denial of admission to a Bachelor of Pharmacy course. The petitioner held 10+2 from the Government-run National Institute of Open Schooling. The institute refused admission relying on a Pharmacy Council of India communication excluding National Open School qualifications. The Court held the communication applied only to unrecognized institutions and granted admissi

What did the court decide?

Government Pharmacy Institute to grant admission to petitioner and allow him to attend classes.

Bablu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

 CWJC No.5014 of 2010

¶3

1. BABLU KUMAR S/O RAM SURESH RAM R/O VILLAGE - URDA, P.S. - CHENARI
, DISTRICT - ROHTAS.

¶4

 Versus

¶5

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶6

2. THE MAGADH UNIVERSITY , BODH GAYA, THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR
3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR COMBINED ENTERANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION
BOARD, I.A.S.BHAWAN, AIRPORT ROAD, PATNA

¶7

4. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT PHARMECY ,INSTITUTE , GULZARBAGH, PATNA
 -----------

¶8

 For the Petitioner : Dr. Subodh Kumar Jha,Mr.Amrendra Kumar
and Mr. Krishna Kumar, Advocates

¶9

 For Respondent No. 4: Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, AC to GA 7
 For Respondent No. 2: Mr, Hansraj, Advocate
 For the Board : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate

¶10

----

¶11

24.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, for the Bihar

¶12

Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter

¶13

referred to as ‘the Board’) and for the Magadh University.

¶14

Notice was issued to the Pharmacy Council of India (respondent no. 5). The office report is of a valid service of notice notwithstanding which no one appears on behalf of the said respondent to oppose the application. This Court therefore proceeds on the premise that having been made aware of pendency of the writ application and the relief sought herein, the Pharmacy Council of India does not oppose the same, and

¶15

therefore does not consider it necessary to enter appearance.

¶16

The petitioner is stated to have completed his 10 + 2 Senior Secondary School Course from the National Institute of Open Schooling in the session 2006-2007. From the counter affidavit of the Board annexing a letter dated 20.3.2010 at Annexure ‘B’ issued by the National Institute of Open Schooling under the pen of its Director it is apparent that it is run under the aegis of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Government of India. The institute from which the petitioner has passed is therefore not an

¶17

¶18

unrecognized below standard institution, but one run by the Government of India itself through an agency.

¶19

The petitioner appeared at the combined competitive examination conducted by the respondent Board and on competing successfully was called for counseling and has been granted admission in the Bachelor of Pharmacy Course at Government Pharmacy Institute, Gulzarbagh at Patna. The Principal of the Institute however denies him admission by relying upon a communication by the Pharmacy Council of India constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948, dated 17.7.2009 that the Central Council had decided to clarify that it does not approve the qualification of 10 + 2 from National Open School for admission to the pharmacy course for the purpose of registration as a Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the board and the Government Pharmacy Institute find it difficult to make any submission questioning the credibility of the institution run by the Government of India from where the petitioner has acquired his

¶21

secondary school qualification.

¶22

This Court finds it peculiar that the Central Council of the Pharmacy Council of India seeks to raise issues against the Central Government itself. The Director of the National Institute of Open Schooling asserts that it is an institution run under the aegis of the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Education, Government of India. The Pharmacy Council of India says that it will not admit students from the National Open School. The actions of the Pharmacy Council of India when questioned before the Court, the Pharmacy Council

¶23

¶24

of India decides to keep quiet. This Court therefore draws an adverse inference against the Pharmacy Council of India. This Court holds that the communication dated 17.7.2009 of the Pharmacy Council of India is obviously restricted and confined in its application to those category of National Open School which may fall under the category of an unrecognized and sub standard institution, but not one run under the aegis of the Government of India itself.

¶25

This Court therefore holds that the communication dated 17.7.2009 of the Pharmacy Council of India has no application to the secondary course run by the National Institute of Open Schooling. It is indeed peculiar to notice as to the manner in which the government institutions appear in conflict with each other, and at the receiving end is the student who has obtained his qualification from a government institution. Had the National Institute of Open School not been run under the aegis of Government of India matters may have been different.

¶26

The Government Pharmacy Institute at Gulzarbagh is directed to grant admission to the petitioner in pursuance of the counseling done and allow him to attend classes. After the petitioner successfully completes the course, the Pharmacy Council of India is precluded from raising any objection with regard to the registration of the petitioner only because of petitioner having studied from the National Institute of Open Schooling.

¶27

The writ application is allowed.

¶28

Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)

¶29

Bablu Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srimati Devi Vs the State of Bihar Ors.

Most.Sushma Kunwar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar Ors.

Sangeeta Kumari and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar Ors.

Vidhawti Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ratan Lal Uraon Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Nath Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.