Unknown vs Pharmacy Council State on 12 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                         2026:UHC:904
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
        Writ Petition Misc. Single No.328 of 2024
                       12th February, 2026
Pratibha Rawat                                    .........Petitioner

                               Versus

Pharmacy Council State
of Uttarakhand and others                     ..........Respondents

                          With
        Writ Petition Misc. Single No.329 of 2024
Suman                                             .........Petitioner

                               Versus

Pharmacy Council State
of Uttarakhand and others                     ..........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari and Ms. Ruchika Negi, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Ms. Seema Sah, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No.328 of 2024 alone are being considered and discussed.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought a direction to respondent no.1 to register the petitioner, as Pharmacist, on the basis of two year diploma (D. Pharma course) obtained by the petitioner from

2026:UHC:904 respondent no.2-Institute affiliated to respondent no.4- Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Roorkee, and consequently the petitioner be issued the registration certificate from respondent no.1-Council.

3. Brief facts of the case for proper adjudication of the issue are that the petitioner before this Court has passed her Senior School Certificate Examination, 2020 (Intermediate Examination) from S.G.N. Senior Secondary School, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, affiliated to Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. The petitioner has passed the aforesaid examination with the following subjects:-

     i.      English
     ii.     Physics
     iii.    Painting
     iv.     Biology
     v.      Physical education
     vi.     Chemistry
     vii.    Work experience
     viii.   Health and physical education
     ix.     General studies.


             Post   passing   the   aforesaid   Senior   School

Certificate Examination, the petitioner has been issued a Marks Statement (Mark Sheet) in which it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner has passed the aforesaid examination and thereafter the Central Board of Secondary Education has also issued a pass certificate in the aforesaid subjects, in the year 2020 itself. Thereafter the petitioner participated in the process of selection for a two year diploma course from the institutes affiliated to Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Roorkee, Haridwar and has taken admission in diploma in Pharmacy in Global Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Jaspur, respondent no.2 herein and she has completed the aforesaid Pharmacy Diploma course in the

2026:UHC:904 academic session 2020-21 and 2021-22, and the final year mark sheet of the aforesaid diploma Examination-2022 (summer) was issued by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, Roorkee. In the aforesaid result so declared clearly shows that the petitioner has passed the aforesaid diploma examination in the year 2002 in first division. Subsequent thereto certificate has also been issued by the Uttarakhand board of Technical Education in which it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner has completed a two year diploma course in pharmacy from the Global Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Jaspur, in first division. Post completion of the aforesaid diploma course, the petitioner has again applied for the lateral entry in the B.Pharma course from the same institute namely Global Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Jaspur, inasmuch as, there are two modes of entry in the B.Pharma course, firstly after completion of intermediate examination, direct admission to B.Pharma Course first year can be taken and other mode is the persons who are holding diploma in pharmacy can have a lateral entry directly in the second year i.e., third semester of the B.Pharma course and accordingly the petitioner before this Court has taken the lateral entry in the B.Pharma course from the Global Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Jaspur in the academic year 2023-24 and presently pursuing such studies.

4. During this time the petitioner before this Court has applied to the respondent no.1 the Pharmacy Council, so that she can have a registration as a Pharmacist in the aforesaid pharmacy council and further she can in future be eligible to run a medical shop. Respondent no.1 has refused the registration of the petitioner with the Pharmacy Council citing the regulations namely the Education

2026:UHC:904 Regulation, 2020 for diploma course in pharmacy issued by the Pharmacy Council of India vide notification dated 09.10.2020.

5. The Chapter II Regulation IV of the aforesaid notification provides the minimum qualification for admission to diploma in Pharmacy, according to which candidate must have passed in 10+2 Examination with physics, chemistry, biology or mathematics. The regulation further provided that what should be the qualification for the pharmacist and it has been provided in Chapter 1 Regulation 2 and for facility the same are quoted hereinunder:-

2. Qualification for Pharmacist: The minimum qualification required for registration as a pharmacist shall be a pass in Diploma in Pharmacy (Part-I & Part-

II) and satisfactory completion of Diploma in Pharmacy (Part-III).

Or Any other qualification approved by the Pharmacy Council of India as equivalent to above.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was specific provisions made about what would be the duration of the course, what would be the study course and who will be approving authority conducting the course of study. It is also submitted herein that all such detail aspects have been mentioned therein and regulation 17 clearly provides that certificate of having passed the examination of diploma in pharmacy part II shall be granted by examining authority to a successful candidate. He submitted that in the present set of circumstances, the aforesaid certificate of passing examination for diploma in pharmacy, has already been issued, by the concerned technical board and it is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed the diploma in pharmacy examination. It is also

2026:UHC:904 submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner is having a qualification of pharmacist, she has passed the course, is having a due and proper certificate issued in this regard, however, the denial of registration by the respondent no.1 on the ground of regulation-IV chapter-II is absolutely erroneous. He also submitted that the respondent no.1 has taken a stand that since in the marksheet of the S.S.C. Examination year 2020, the petitioner is not qualified in theory of chemistry and has secured 17 marks only and since the passing of examination in physics, biology and chemistry is must for taking admission in a diploma in pharmacy course and since the petitioner has not passed the chemistry examination at the said point of time and hence she was not qualified or eligible to be admitted in the course of diploma in pharmacy and hence at this stage has refused the registration on the aforesaid ground. He further submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner before the Court has taken admission in the pharmacy course, she has qualified such and has been issued a certificate in this regard.

7. It is also relevant to mention herein that the petitioner at the time of counseling for taking admission in the course D.Pharma, has submitted all her documents, mark sheets and whatever relevant information was to be provided to the respondent no.2 & 4, and it can never be said that there was any suppression of material fact, misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner while taking admission in the Institute. He further submitted that the petitioner with full dedication has completed the course, has provided all relevant information and has not suppressed the aforesaid information and it is totally erroneous on the part of respondent no.1 at this stage, to deny registration as a pharmacist with the pharmacy council of the State of Uttarakhand. He further

2026:UHC:904 states that the petitioner has already put her golden year in order to pursue her carrier in the pharmacy field, in fact she has also taken lateral entry in the B.Pharma Course and affectively three years have already been utilized, in the aforesaid studies and this makes it absolutely clear that there was no fault at the part of the petitioner, and hence the respondent no.1 is under an obligation to register the petitioner with the pharmacy council of the State of Uttarakhand.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted herein that in similar set of circumstances, an issue came before this Court in the matter of Writ Petition (M/S) No.1472 of 2023, Poonam Almia Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein, the council for nurses and midwives of the State of Uttarakhand, has denied the registration on the ground that the said petitioner was not qualified to be given admission in B.Sc nursing 4 years Course, yet she was given admission and she successfully completed the course, this Court while considering overall facts and circumstances of the case has been pleased to allow the writ petition and the respondent no.2, the Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives Council was directed to register the petitioner based on her course completion certificate given by the respondent no.3 the college and the provisional certificate given by the respondent no.4 the University. He also submits that the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner are similar to such circumstances and further as per the personal knowledge of the petitioner the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court have duly been complied with by the said Council and it is in the interest of justice that the respondent no.1 be also directed to register the petitioner with the pharmacy council.

2026:UHC:904

9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 in his counter affidavit has stated that as per the regulations it is necessary to the candidates who are seeking admission in Diploma in Pharmacy should have passed 10+2 examination from science stream with Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Mathematics but the petitioner could not secure passing marks in Chemistry. This fact of non- clearance in the subject of Chemistry made the petitioner in-eligible for proceeding towards registration as pharmacists hence the petitioner is not entitle for any relief and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. She further submits that the answering respondent had refused the registration of the petitioner as Pharmacist infact the respondent no-1 send all the documents for verification as petitioner was not qualified for the registration as per Regulations .It is stated here that the Education Regulations 1992, Chapter 2 (5) has laid down the qualifications for admission in diploma in pharmacy part 1 and as per the aforesaid regulation the candidates who are seeking admission in Diploma in Pharmacy should have secured pass marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. But in the present case the petitioner could not secure passing marks in Chemistry as per the Education Regulations.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has submitted that the pharmacy council has to see the aspects of the degree of pharmacy inasmuch as at this stage, it is not eligible for the pharmacy council to object the registration of pharmacist only for the reason that the admission in the pharma course was not proper and the petitioner was not eligible to be given admission in D.Pharma Course. It is submitted herein that the petitioner participated in the selection process, she too participated in the counseling, there is no suppression of fact of educational qualification by the petitioner and she has

2026:UHC:904 issued the degree of D-pharma Course from the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education, government board and hence after completing all the course such a stand taken by the pharmacy council is absolutely unwanted. It is further submitted by him that it's a government institution and a government agency who has taken entrance exam for providing admission in the D- Pharma course, the petitioner has participated in such process has passed the D-Pharma Course and it is not available for the respondent to take an objection with regard to educational qualification of intermediate and this makes it absolutely clear that false and frivolous plea has been taken at this stage. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer at this stage when she has already put valuable years of her life in pursing D-Pharma Course.

11. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 submitted that respondent no.4-Uttarkhand Board of Technical Education conducts the Joint Entrance Examination Polytehcnic annually, inviting interested candidates to fill out the online/offline application form for enrollment in JEEP examination. This aims to allocate seats in various courses, including the Diploma in Pharmacy Course, to the candidates in Government and private Institutions affiliated with respondent no.4. The allocation is based on their merit in JEEP Examination and the choices submitted during counseling. Accordingly, the petitioner has also participated and appeared in JEEP-2020. Here the petitioner has directly taken admission to the institute of respondent no.2. Admission through JEEP or directly into the Institution affiliated with respondent no.4 is contingent upon meeting the required academic qualifications and completing document verification at the allocated Institution, with confirmation subsequently granted. Furthermore, the petitioner was allowed to participate in

2026:UHC:904 the examinations for the Diploma in Pharmacy 1st Year and 2nd Final Year Examination conducted by respondent no.4 only after receiving confirmation of admission and subsequently submitting a duly signed affidavit dated 07.01.2021 by the petitioner's Institution (respondent no.2). According to the terms of the affidavit, the Institution (respondent no.2) meticulously reviewed all documents of the petitioner, ensuring compliance with the prescribed norms for admission to the Diploma in Pharmacy Course, and undertakes responsibility for admissions. It is also stated that the documents of all admitted students are kept securely by the Institution.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the facts in hand, the following facts are not in dispute:-

(i) The petitioner appeared for Class 12th examination conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education ("CBSE"). She was declared pass as per the mark sheet and certificate issued by the CBSE as C.B.S.E. takes into account best of five subjects in 12th standard.

(ii) The petitioner did apply for her admission in the respondent no.2-College in D.Pharma Course. She filled the counselling form. The petitioner also filed her mark sheets alongwith application form.

(iii) This is what she recorded in her counselling.

(iv) In her application form also, the petitioner did disclose her intermediate marks. She did not conceal any of her documents pertaining to the marks obtained by her in 12th standard.

(v) It is not the case of either of the respondents that the petitioner committed any forgery or deliberately concealed any document.

13. This Court cannot presume that the petitioner knew that the minimum marks required for awarding the degree of Pharmacy is 45% aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The petitioner did submit her documents and her mark sheets. She has disclosed her five subjects marks obtained in 12th standard.

2026:UHC:904

14. In the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University and another, reported in, AIR 1986 Supp. SCC 740 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar situation observed in para 8 as hereunder:-

"8. We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. But the question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of this Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective engineering colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the engineering degree course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the engineering colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year BSc examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre- University Examination of the Pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year BSc examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The fault lies with the engineering colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principals of these engineering colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these engineering colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this Judgment, allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective engineering colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring engineering colleges the Karnataka University should take appropriate action because the managements of these engineering colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the engineering degree course. We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his Judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students."

15. In the instant case also, as stated, the petitioner may not be presumed to know as to what was the minimum marks prescribed by the Pharmacy Council for registering the petitioner as Pharmacist. She had submitted her documents. It is not the case of any of the respondents that the petitioner at any stage, withheld the documents

2026:UHC:904 and gave forged documents. The percentage of marks which she filled is aggregate of five best subjects. This is admittedly, the mistake of the respondent no.2-College. The petitioner did not make any misrepresentation, did not play any fraud and did not conceal anything and, in fact, disclosed every documents of her. The petitioner had already undergone D.Pharma Course and has also taken lateral entry in B.Pharma. She has given youthful years of her life for the course. She has completed the course. She has been provided pass certificate by the College.

16. In view of above facts, this Court is of the view that it would grave injustice to the petitioner, if now the respondent no.1 decline to register her.

17. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand allowed. The respondent no.1-Pharmacy Council is directed to register the petitioners based on their course completion certificate given by the respondent no.2-College and the respondent no.4.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.02.2026 SK