TARAK NATH SASMAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed these writ petitions praying this Court to direct the Member Secretary, Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, Bhubaneswar (opp.party No.3 in all the writ petitions) to declare their results and issue certificate of Diploma in Pharmacy in their favour. The case of the petitioners bereft of unnecessary details is that after completing their Higher Secondary Studies, they submitted applications in prescribed form for admission to Diploma in Pharmacy course in Pharmacy Colleges of Orissa for the year 2000 -01 and after considering their applications and being satisfied with their eligibility they were directed to take admission in Sidheswar College of Pharmaceutical Science, Amarda Road in the district of Balasore, (opp.party No.4). It is claimed by the petitioners that they pursued their studies in the said college and appeared in Part -I and Part -II examinations on the strength of admit cards issued by the Orissa State Board of Pharmacy, Bhubaneswar (in short, 'OSBP) and OSBP also issued mark sheets in their favour. They claim that after completing Part -I and Part -II Courses, they became eligible for practical training which forms Part -III of the Course and basing on the authority granted by opp.party No.4, they could take practical training in different hospitals. After successful completion of the course, they repeatedly requested the OSBP to declare the result and issue certificate of Diploma in Pharmacy in their favour, but OSBP did not declare their result on the plea that they did not possess the requisite minimum qualification for admission into Diploma in Pharmacy course. According to the petitioners, when they were duly admitted to the Diploma in Pharmacy course after scrutiny of the documents, certificates etc. and were allowed to appear in the examinations and took practical training, there is no scope for the opp.parties to cancel their results and withhold their certificates on the plea that they lack the requisite minimum qualification for admission into the course. It is specifically claimed by the petitioners that they have passed the Higher Secondary Course with required subjects, namely, physics, chemistry, biology etc. and are therefore, eligible for admission in to Diploma in Pharmacy course. They allege that the action of the opp.parties in withholding their certificates is tainted with malice and arbitrariness and so direction should be issued from this Court asking them to issue Diploma Certificates in their favour.

(2.) OPP .party No.4 - Principal, Sidheswar College of Pharmaceutical Science, Amarda Road, Balasore did not file any counter. Opp.party No.2 filed counter for itself and opp.party No.1. Opp.party No.3 filed separate counter. In their counter, opp.party Nos.2 and 3 while denying the assertions of the petitioners claimed inter alia that the petitioners do not possess the qualification prescribed under Regulation -5 of the Education Regulations, 1991 for Diploma in Pharmacy Course, (in short "Regulations, 1991"), and are accordingly ineligible for admission in the said Course. Opp.parties 2 and 3 assert that the petitioners have passed Higher Secondary Course in Vocational Stream which is never equivalent to Intermediate of Science or 1st year of the three year Degree Course in Science or 10 + 2 Examination in Science academic Stream/Pre -degree examination in science as prescribed in Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991 and opp.party Nos.2 and 3 have also not declared the Higher Secondary Vocational Course as equivalent examination to examinations mentioned in Regulation 5. Opp.party Nos. 2 and 3 further alleged that opp.party No.4 was not included in the counseling for admission to Pharmacy Colleges of Orissa, but the said college admitted the petitioners to Diploma in Pharmacy Course in their management quota without taking approval of opp.party Nos.2 and 3 although the petitioners are ineligible for admission in to Diploma in Pharmacy course. They claim that when the ineligibility of the petitioners came to the notice of the OSBP, it had to cancel the result of Part -II examination of the petitioners and withhold their certificates.

(3.) MR . M.S. Panda, learned counsel appearing for opp.party No.3 on the other hand, contended that Higher Secondary Course in Vocational Stream is never equivalent to +2 course of academic stream; and the Regulations, 1991 also do not contain any provision declaring Higher Secondary Vocational as equivalent to +2 Science Academic stream, and as such the petitioners do not possess the required minimum qualification for admission into Diploma Course in Pharmacy prescribed under Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1991. He further submitted that the petitioners were allowed to appear in Part -I and Part -II examinations in good faith, but on discovery that they did not posses the minimum required qualification for admission into Diploma Course, their result was cancelled and in such situation the petitioners cannot demand for declaration of their result and issuance of Diploma certificates on the plea of promissory estoppel. In support of such contentions, learned counsel relied on the case of Miss. Reeta Lenka v. Berhampur University and another, (1992 (II) OLR 341).