Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Ap Pharmacy Gun., vs N. Krishna, 3 Others, on 10 December, 2021
Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, B S Bhanumathi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI
W.A.No.1145 of 2017
And
W.P.Nos.6855 of 2012, 6511 of 2013, 31942 of 2013, 1606 of 2014,
35686 of 2015, 507 of 2016, 28045 of 2017, 28180 of 2017,
28189 of 2017 and 28352 of 2017
(Through physical mode)
W.A.No.1145 of 2017:
The Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council, rep. by its Registrar,
Pola Nagaraju, II Floor, Chuttugunta, Guntur-522 004.
...Appellant
Versus
N.Krishna S/o Subbarayudu, Kadapa, Cuddapah District and others
... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Mekala Venkateswara Rao
(SC for APPC)
Counsel for the respondent no.1 : Mr.A.K.Kishore Reddy
Counsel for respondents 2 & 3 : G.P for Education
Counsel for respondent no.4 : Mr. Harinath.N (ASG)
W.P.No.6855 of 2012:
Reshma Begum Shaik D/o Babji Sk. West Godavari District and Another
...Petitioners
Versus
Pharmacy Council of India and others
....Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioners : Mr. T.Durga Prasad Rao
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr.Harinath.N (ASG)
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao
W.P.No.6511 of 2013:
Gorle Shanti Kumari D/o G.Demudu Babu
Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District
...Petitioner
Vs.
The AP State Pharmacy Council and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Mr. Ch.Srinivas
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr.Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for respondent no. 2 : Mr. P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao
W.P.No.31942 of 2013:
Kundeti Srinivas Rao S/o Dastagiri, Bharatpet,
Guntur District, Guntur
...Petitioner
Versus
Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Mr. G.Pedda Babu
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr.Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr.Harinath.N (ASG)
Counsel for respondent No. 3 : G.P for Medical, Health & Family Welfare
W.P.No.1606 of 2014:
Yerramsetti Beaulah Suneetha D/o Ananda Rao
Vizianagaram District
....Petitioner
Verses
The Government of India rep by its Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India
New Delhi and others
....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Kuriti Bhaskar Rao
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr. Harinath. N (ASG)
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for respondents 3 to 5 : G.P for Education
W.P.No.35686 of 2015:
V.Sree Lakshmi D/o V. Taviti Naidu, R/o Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Principal Secretary and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Smt. A. Harija
Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr.Harinath.N (ASG)
Counsel for the respondent No.3 : Mr.Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for the respondent No.4 : Smt. M.Siva Jyothi
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 5 : Mr. P VVVS Rama Rao
W.P.No.507 of 2016:
Shaik Mahaboob Basha S/o Shaik Allah Baksh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
The Pharmacy Council of India and another
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Mr. Rajagopallavan Tayi
Counsel for respondent no.1 : Mr. Harinath.N (ASG)
Counsel for the respondent no.2 : Mekala Venkateswara Rao
W.P.No.28045 of 2017:
K.Satish Kumar S/o K.C.Kuppuraman, Chittoor District
...Petitioner
Versus
The Pharmacy Council of India and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Mr. P.V.Raghu Ram
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr. Harinath.N (ASG)
Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr.Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for respondent No. 3&4 : G.P for Education
W.P.No.28180 of 2017:
Smt. Onturu Anusha D/o Onturi Atchireddy,
Gurazala, Guntur District.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Pharmacy Council of India and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr. Harinath. N (ASG)
Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr.Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for respondent No. 3 : G.P for Education
W.P.No.28189 of 2017:
Bagadi Raja Rao S/o Bagadi Suryanarayana,
Vakalavalasa, Srikakulam District.
...Petitioner
Versus
The Pharmacy Council of India and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr. Harinath.N (ASG)
Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr.Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for respondent No. 3 : G.P for Education
W.P.No.28352 of 2017:
Smt.Jakkula Adilakshmi D/o Jakkula Thirupathaiah
...Petitioner
Versus
The Pharmacy Council of India and others
...Respondents
Counsel for the writ petitioner : Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig
Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Mr.Harinath. N (ASG)
Counsel for the respondent No.2 : Mr.Mekala Venkateswara Rao
Counsel for respondent No. 3 : G.P for Education
COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 10.12.2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
W.A.No.1145 of 2017 would call in question order dated 13.06.2017,
passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.No.22847 of 2007 preferred
by the writ petitioner challenging the order dated 03.09.2007, passed by the
Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council rejecting his application for registration as
Pharmacist.
2. In the writ petition, it was averred that after having completed his
Intermediate (Vocational Course) Examination, the writ petitioner was
admitted to Diploma in Pharmacy Course and upon completion of the said
course, he is entitled to be registered as a Pharmacist under the Pharmacy
Act, 1948 and the rules framed thereunder. But, ignoring his eligibility, the 4th
respondent-The Pharmacy Council of India, rejected the application of the writ
petitioner for registration.
3. The 4th respondent defended the action on the ground that Intermediate
(Vocational Course) Examination is not a recognised eligible qualification for
admission to a Diploma course. Therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled
to be registered as a Pharmacist.
4. The attention of the Court was invited to Regulation 5 of Education
Regulations, 1991 (for short, 'the Regulations'). Sub-Regulation (5) of the
Regulations provides the following examinations with Physics, Chemistry and
Biology or Mathematics as valid qualification for admission to a Diploma in
Pharmacy Part-I Course, namely:
(1) Intermediate examination Science;
(2) The first year of the three year degree course in Science;
(3) 10+2 examination (academic stream) in Science;
(4) Pre-degree examination;
(5) Any other qualification approved by the Pharmacy Council of India as
equivalent to any of the above examination may also be considered
as minimum qualification.
However, for the present, we are not on the issue as to whether Intermediate
(Vocational Course) examination has to be treated to be an equivalent
qualification or not.
5. The issue as to whether such examination was a valid examination for
admission to pharmacy course has been set at rest by the Pharmacy Council of
India in its letter dated 10.02.2020. As a matter of fact, the said letter has
been issued pursuant to the impugned order dated 13.06.2017, passed by the
leaned Single Judge in W.P.No.22847 of 2007. The contents of the letter being
germane to the issue on hand, letter dated 10.02.2020, is reproduced in
entirety:
"Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 10.16 AM
PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA
(Constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948)
TELEPHONE: 011-61299900 NBCC Centre, 3rd Floor
61299901, 61299902, 61299903 Plot No.2, Community Centre
E-Mail : [email protected] Maa Anandamal Marg Okhla
WEBSITE: www.pci.nic.in phase I
New Delhi - 110 020
Ref.No.14-2/2020-PCT
To
1) Andhra Pradesh State Pharmacy Council
2) Telangana State Pharmacy Council
From: PCI
Sub: Intermediate in Vocational/Bridge course conducted by the Board of
Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh for admission to various pharmacy courses.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to inform that subject cited issue was
considered by 108th Central Council of the Pharmacy Council of India in its meeting held in
January, 2020, which decided as under -
a) In the light of the court judgment dt.13.6.2017 in Writ Petition No.22847 of 2007 filed
by N.Krishna Vs. Govt of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Which has gone in favour of students and
various representations made by the students in the Council's office, the admission of students
in pharmacy course(s) already admitted on the basis of Intermediate vocational course/Bridge
course with Physics, Chemistry, Biology/Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics run by Board of
Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh be approved for the purpose of registration as a
pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. It is subject to condition that students have passed
out from the institutions approved by the PCI u/s 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and passed an
approved examination as certified by the Examining Authority as one time measure only
without citing a precedence.
b) It was noted that Council has already written to State Governments, Directors of
Technical Education, Admission making authorities. Examining Authorities and Board of
Intermediate Education of both Andhra Pradesh and Telangana that Intermediate Vocational
Course/Bridge course is not approved by the PCI for the purpose of admission to the pharmacy
courses and hence, statutory provisions of various Education Regulations as framed under the
Pharmacy Act, 1948 be strictly complied with failing which admissions made if any will not be
eligible for registration as a pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act to practice the profession and
the entire consequences thereof shall rest on the Admission making authorities and PCI in no
way shall be responsible for it.
It is reiterated that -
a) Above admissions approved are for already admitted students only as a one time
measure without citing a precedence.
b) It is not for admission to be made in future.
This is for your necessary action.
Yours faithfully,
(ARCHANA MUDGAL)
Registrar-cum-Secretary"
6. It is thus apparent that Intermediate (Vocational Course) examination is
not a recognised minimum qualification for admission to Diploma in Pharmacy
Part-I. The writ petitioner in W.A.No.1145 of 2017 like the petitioners in all
the writ petitions except W.P.No.507 of 2016 possesses the said qualification.
It is not their case that their qualification is equivalent to any other
qualifications in clauses (1) to (4) of Regulation (5) of the Regulations. Their
case is that in view of the letter dated 10.02.2020, the Pharmacy Council of
India, having approved their Pharmacy Diploma Certificate examination, as one
time measure; they are entitled to be registered by the A. P. Pharmacy
Council.
7. In the above letter issued by the Pharmacy Council of India, it is
categorically mentioned that Intermediate (Vocational Course) examination is
not a recognised minimum qualification for admission to Diploma in Pharmacy
Part-I course. However, while directing the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
State Pharmacy Councils not to admit any candidate having the qualification of
Intermediate (Vocational Course) examination to Diploma in Pharmacy Part-I
course, the Pharmacy Council of India has granted one time approval to the
candidates who have already admitted to Diploma in Pharmacy Part-I course at
an earlier date.
8. In view of the above, particularly, in view of the letter dated
10.02.2020, issued by the Pharmacy Council of India, extracted above, we are
inclined to dispose of the writ appeal as well as the writ petitions with
direction that the Andhra Pradesh State Pharmacy Council shall register the
respective writ petitioners as Pharmacists under the State Register of
Pharmacists within a period of eight weeks from today. It is made clear that
any candidate having been admitted to D.Pharmacy course with Intermediate
(Vocational Course) examination, after 10.02.2020, i.e., after issuance of the
letter by the Pharmacy Council of India, shall not be entitled to be registered
as Pharmacist by the A.P. State Pharmacy Council by virtue of letter of the
Pharmacy Council of India.
9. Insofar as W.P.No.507 of 2016 is concerned, Sri N.Harinath, learned
Assistant Solicitor General, would submit that the writ petitioner in this case
has passed Intermediate examination from National Institute of Open
Schooling, New Delhi, and on this ground, he was denied registration by the
Andhra Pradesh Pharmacy Council. Sri N.Harinath, however, would fairly refer
to Annexure R2 to submit that the Pharmacy Council of India, in its
communication dated 07.09.2015, addressed to all such Pharmacy
Councils/Registration Tribunals, amongst others, to the effect that a student
who has passed from Open School education system of the Central
Government/State Government institution is made eligible for admission to
pharmacy courses as per the concerned Education Regulations. Thus,
according to him, the petitioner in W.P.No.507 of 2016 is entitled to be
registered as Pharmacist by the Andhra Pradesh State Pharmacy Council.
10. In view of the above, the petitioner in W.P.No.507 of 2016 is also
entitled to be registered as Pharmacist and the writ issued in other writ
petitions shall apply in W.P.No.507 of 2016 also.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal as well as the writ petitions are disposed
of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J
RAR
