BIPLAB KUMAR SAHOO Vs. MEMBER-SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner after completing his Higher Secondary Education in Vocational Stream under West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education took admission in Siddheswar College of Pharmaceutical Science situated at Amarda Road in the district of Balasore to pursue his studies in Diploma in Pharmacy. He continued his study in that College appeared in the examination of Pharmacy Part -I, Part -II conducted by opp.party No.1, Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, Bhubaneswar (in short, "OSBP") in June, 2002 and November, 2004 respectively and passed those examinations with 1st Class. He then received practical training according to Regulation 20 of the Education Regulations, 1991 for the Diploma Course in Pharmacy, (in short "the Regulations, 1991") and obtained contract form from head of the training institution. After successful completion of the training in Part -III he produced all his certificates to the examination authorities with a request to grant certificate of Diploma in Pharmacy as per Regulation 22. But opp.party No.1 instead of issuing the certificate of Pharmacy cancelled the D -Pharma Part -II result of the petitioner vide Notification No.371/OSBP/85/2004, dated 5.6.2004 (Annexure -13) and directed him to surrender his mark -sheet of that examination on the plea that the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification for admission into D -Pharma course as prescribed in Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991. Aggrieved by such action of opp.party No.1, petitioner has filed the present writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification under Annexure -13 and direct the opp.party No.1 to issue the certificate of D -Pharma course in his favour and to allow him to register his name in the Register of the State Council, opposite party No.1 as a Pharmacist with due intimation to the Central Council, opp.party No.3 as per the provisions of Act and Rules.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No.2 and 3 by separate counters refuted the plea of the petitioners claiming, inter alia that the petitioner does not possess the minimum required qualification for admission into D -Pharma Course but in collusion with opposite party No.4 he got himself admitted in such course and pursued his studies. They claim that on discovery of the lack of eligibility of the petitioner, opp.party No.1 had no other alternative than to cancel the result of the petitioner. Opposite party No.4 did not file any counter.

(3.) MR . M. S. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opp.party No.1 on the other hand, contended that Higher Secondary Course in Vocational Stream is never equivalent to +2 Science academic stream; and as such, the petitioner does not possess the required minimum qualification for admission into the Diploma Course in Pharmacy prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991.