Romil Tanwar And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct And Anr.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1778 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Page 2892

1. Issue Rule. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents waive notice of Rule. With consent of counsel for the parties, these petitions were heard finally.

Page 2893

2. All the petitioners had applied for admission to the D-Pharmacy Course in various institutions in the Govt. of NCT. The D-Pharmacy Course is recognised by the Pharmacy Council of India; it a regulatory body in terms of Pharmacy Act, 1948. The petitioners had finished their schooling from the National Open School and thereafter appeared in a common entrance test conducted by the Govt. of NCT for filling seats in the D-Pharmacy Course.

3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners had qualified in the National Open School and were issued certificates for having completed the senior secondary level of their education. The Government of NCT advertised for filling of the D-Pharmacy Courses in 10 or so institutions in Delhi. A Common Entrance Test (CET) was held on 2.6.2007; the results were declared on 18.6.2007. The result of those qualified was published on 26.6.2007. It is claimed that the petitioners qualified according to the parameters set by the CET and achieved the following rankings:

  Sl. No.      Name       Rank     Category
Petitioners in W.P.(C) 5827/2007
   1.    Romil Tanwar   888        SC
   2.    Sumit Sonkar   584        SC
   3.    Rajesh Kumar   498        OBC
   4.    Naveen         726        OBC
   5.    Hitesh Yadav   614        OBC
   6.    Rohit Grover   320       General
(Petitioner in WP(C) 6314/2007)

 

4. On 3.8.2007, the petitioners were called for counselling along with other candidates who had qualified their CET. When they attended the session, they were not permitted to attend the counselling. The position taken by the respondents was that the Central Pharmacy Council by its resolution dated 7/8th April, 2007 had decided not to approve Open school qualifications of any State under Regulation 5(5) of the Educational Regulations, 1991 for admission to the D-Pharmacy Course.

5. It was contended that the respondents acted in an arbitrary and whimsical manner by admission to the petitioners. Emergent notice was ordered and the respondent, namely, Pharmacy Council has appeared to contest these proceedings.

6. The Council justifies its position with reference to the resolution of 7/8th April, 2007. Learned Counsel Mr. Ray took me through the Regulations which empower the Council to set standards for conducting the courses; these include admission standards. According to learned Counsel, the decision to recognise Open School Qualifications were taken sometime in 1999 but they were confined only to the National Open School. Learned Counsel relied upon the affidavit and contended that the emerging challenges of dispensing complex medication in the light of the recent advances in bio-chemistry and drugs require that the candidates for D.Pharma course should have attended a school education course of some regularity. It was contended that the structure of an open learning is Page 2894 premised on flexible learning with no pre-condition of regular attendance of classes; the candidate is given the option of appearing and succeeding in the paper many times on an incremental basis. Learned Counsel, therefore, contended that being an expert professional body that carefully examined all the aspects and concluded that the qualification of National Open Schooling was not adequate for to admission to the D-Pharmacy Course the Court should defer to its decision.

7. Learned Counsel relied upon the resolution of the 78th Meeting of the D-Pharmacy Course dated 7th April, 2007 and urged that the council decided to withdraw its earlier approval to Open Schools of States under Regulation 5(5) of the Education Regulation 1991. It was contended that previously only the National Open School had been granted recognition as a qualification for admission of the D-Pharmacy Course; that have now been withdrawn.

8. Learned Counsel fairly brought to the notice of the Court that in a Division Bench ruling in the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 24th August, 2007, namely, Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. Haryana State Counselling Society and Anr. The Court had considered the effect of mid-stream withdrawal of approval to such candidates possessing open school certificates for the D.Pharma course and held to be it unfair. A copy of the said order had been produced.

9. The Court had relied upon the judgment of The Supreme Court reported as Suresh Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , Neelam Kumar v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1993 (1) RSJ 327 and a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1993 (4) SLR 673 that in the absence of a provision in prospectus ineligibility could not be pleaded.

10. A reading of the judgment would disclose that the Court was guided by the fact that the change of policy occurred at a point of time when rights of the parties had crystallised. In these circumstances, the Court felt that enforcement of such change of policy would have resulted in an arbitrariness. The relevant part of the order reads as follows:

In view of above, though a statutory order not incorporated in a prospectus can be enforced and principle of promissory estoppel may not affect a statutory power for change of policy, in the present case, the petitioners had already applied and were called for counselling and till then,, their qualification was being recognised for eligibility to the admission, having regard to practical considerations, we are of the view that declaring the petitioners ineligible on facts and circumstances of the present case, will be arbitrary.

We, accordingly, allow this petition and direct that the petitioners be treated as eligible.

11. I have considered the materials on record. The facts here are the same as in Gurcharan Singh's case (supra). The petitioners did apply and participate in the CET; they were successful; even their names were published in the list of qualified candidates. At the fag end of the process i.e. counselling state they were informed about the decision of the Pharmacy Page 2895 Council. Whatever be the compulsion of the Pharmacy Council. It is apparent there was a communication gap between the two authorities i.e. first respondent and the Council. It is expected from the Pharmacy Council to inform the general public well in advance regarding the eligibility of candidates determined by it. Its inability to do so has resulted in this litigation and also, in my opinion, a great degree of hardship to the petitioners.

12. While a regulatory or expert body's in the exercise of its powers can legitimately determine eligibility conditions for admission to courses, would not interdict such determination as the academic body is an expert, nevertheless a decision impacting sections of the public or the general public has to be made known sufficiently well in advance so as to avoid arbitrariness. The necessity of transitional provisions whereby candidates who prepare for or hold themselves as candidates for examinations with the aim of applying for one course or the other are given sufficient time to make a different choice, becomes vital. In this case no such breathing time was ever given. The Pharmacy Council did not publish its resolution withdrawing the recognition to the Open School.

13. There is some authority for the proposition, in administrative law that after commencement of a selection process, conditions of eligibility should not be changed to the detriment of participants who applied on the basis of a previous conditions (see P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka ; P. Marugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu )

14. In view of the above conclusions, the respondents are hereby directed to proceed and fill the seats in terms of the petitioner's performance and entitlement in the results of the CET. The process shall be completed within one week from today and the respondents shall ensure that admissions are made within two weeks.

15. The petitions are allowed in the above terms. No costs.