O P KATYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P.Katyal, President of Governing Body as well as Managing Director, Longowal College of Pharmacy, Dera Bassi, District Patiala, through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the minutes of 11th meeting of Affiliation and Accredition Committee held on February 3, 1999 under the chairmanship of Ms. Ravneet Kaur, IAS, Punjab State Board of Technical Education, Annexure P-15, being mala fide, illegal, contrary to law. He further prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 Punjab State Board of Technical Education to recommend students for admission in two years' diploma course in Pharmacy with an intake capacity of 60 students for the Session 1999-2000. Reliefs, as asked for in the present petition, are sought to rest on the fact that need a necessary mention.

(2.) Petitioner Pharmacy is stated to have started in the year 1986 and it continued to function till 1996 when all of a sudden recognition to run the college was withdrawn by Punjab Technical Education Board, Chandigarh-respondent No. 3. A copy of letter for dis-affiliation of Pharmacy has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. On the orders aforesaid, petitioner was constrained to file Civil Writ Petition in this Court which was, however, withdrawn inasmuch as there was provision for filing appeal before respondent No. 3. Consequently, an appeal was filed, on which, respondent No. 3, after hearing the petitioner and making inspection, granted re-affiliation on August 5, 1997 vide order, Annexure P-4 with certain conditions which are as follows :-

(3.) The said affiliation was for one year, i.e., for the year 1997-98, but no student was recommended for admission during the academic Session 1997-98 on the plea that approval of Pharmacy Council of India had not been received and as such students could not be recommended for the said academic year. Respondent No. 3 is said to have addressed a letter to the Pharmacy Council of India that the said College may be affiliated again for the academic session 1998-99, subject to removal of deficiencies and recruitment of staff. The institute shall be allowed to admit students only after approval of Pharmacy Council of India and A.I.C.T.E.is obtained and Board is satisfied that the Institute meets norms laid down. In order to fulfil the conditions imposed by respondent No. 3, the Pharmacy deposited a sum of Rs. 9.8 lacs as endowment fund with respondent No. 3 and also removed the other defects. It is the case of petitioner that staff was interviewed and selected, appointments were not made as the students were not recommended by respondent No. 3 for the Academic Session 1997-98 and it was very difficult to pay salaries and allowances to the staff without students. However, inasmuch as the affiliation had been granted by respondent No. 3 for the Session 1998-99, petitioner selected and issued appointment letters to the required staff. Respondent No. 3 is then stated to have addressed a letter to respondent No. 4 to grant approval for running Diploma Course in Pharmacy as also to respondent No. 6 for giving their approval for running the said College. Respondent No. 6 is then stated to have conveyed vide letter dated December 23, 1997 that it had extended its earlier approval accorded to the Pharmacy up to 1997-98 for running the Diploma Course in Pharmacy. Petitioner again approached respondent No. 6 for extension in approval vide letter dated July 15, 1998 for the academic session 1998-99. When the students were not recommended for admission during academic session 1998-99, petitioner filed CWP No. 15408 of 1998 in this Court. When the writ was still pending, respondent No. 5 accorded recognition and affiliation to petitioner institute for admission of 60 students and also conducting their examination for the Session 1998-99 to 1999-2000 vide letter dated November 18, 1998. Respondent No. 6 also informed the petitioner that there was no objection in giving recognition and affiliation for the Session 1998-99 in case respondent No. 3 clarifies the position. Respondents 2 and 3 also informed that they were hardly concerned with the recognition and affiliation matter of the Pharmacy inasmuch as this was a private institute and entire control vested with respondent No. 3. When the matter was still pending, respondent No. 3, all of a sudden presented the minutes of 11th meeting of Affiliation and Accredition Committee held on February 3, 1999, Annexure P-15, wherein it was recommended as follows :-