RAJNEESH SOBTI Vs. HARYANA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought a mandate to the Haryana State Pharmacy Council, Chandigarh to issue him Licence (Certificate of Enrollment as registered Pharmacist) in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner passed the 10 + 2 (Science Group) Examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education (Open School) in May, 1990 and the result was declared on August 23, 1990. He got admission to Diploma Course in Pharmacy in Gandhi College of Pharmacy, Karnal in 1990 for the Session 1990-91. The duration of the said Course for the students who had completed 10 + 2 (Science Group) examination in one year. The examination for the Final Year Diploma Course in Pharmacy was conducted by the Haryana State Board of Technical Education (for short, the Board) in September, 1991. The petitioner got re-appear in three papers. The result of the Pharmacy Course Diploma examination was declared on November 15, 1991. The petitioner re-appeared in those papers in December, 1991 and the result was declared on April 16, 1992. He cleared two papers, i. e. Theory Paper-II and Practical Paper-IV. As such one Theory Paper-V remained to be passed by him. The petitioner appeared in Theory Paper-V held in October/november, 1992. The result was declared on February 17, 1993 and the petitioner was declared successful. Sarvshri Sandeep Kumar and Amit Chopra, who had passed the Diploma Course in Pharmacy likewise were issued the Licence/registration Certificate as Pharmacists by the respondent. The petitioner was, however, not issued the Certificate of Enrollment as Registered Pharmacist and this led to the filing of this writ petition.

(3.) THE Rules provide for re-appearing in paper/papers of the Diploma Course in Pharmacy in which the student, has failed. On successful passing out in all the papers, the result will relate back to the date when the student first appeared in the examination. The petitioner availed the benefit of re-appearing in the papers in which he had failed under the Regulations. Once he had been allowed to avail the benefit, his result will obviously relate back to the date when he first took the examination. Consequently, the petitioner will be deemed to have passed the final examination of the Diploma Course m Pharmacy in the Session 1990-91. Even otherwise, once the Diploma Examination-in Pharmacy Course conducted by the Board has been approved by the Pharmacy Council of India for the Session 1990-91, there appears to be no logic for refusing recognition for passing the examination in the subsequent session.