AGARWAL PHARMACY COLLEGE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners on 23-9-2003 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 11-9-2003 (Annex. 8) passed by respondent No.1-State of Rajasthan, Technical Education Department, Jaipur by which :

(2.) The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows : The petitioner No. 2 Jan Hit Sewa Sansthan is a registered Society under the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1987"). The case of the petitioners is that the applications were invited from the registered Societies and Trusts for opening Private Technical Colleges and in pursuance of that, the petitioners also applied in the name of petitioner No.1 Agarwal Pharmacy College for Two Years' Diploma Course in Pharmacy. The said application of the petitioners was accepted by the respondents through order Annex. 1, dated 28-4-2003. The further case of the petitioners is that the Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jodhpur through letter Annex. 2, dated 30-6-2003 informed the petitioners that the All India Council for Technical Education (for short "AICTE") through letter Annex. 3, dated 20-6-2003 granted the approval for opening of the Diploma Course in D-Pharmacy from the Academic Session 2003-04. The further case of the petitioners is that though they applied for strength of 420 seats for admission in the Diploma Course in D-Pharmacy, but while granting permission, the AICTE, as per their policy, restricted the strength of the students upto 60 only. The further case of the petitioners is that the State Government issued letter dated 21-5-2003 (Annex. 5) to different Universities in Rajasthan interpreting the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481 : (AIR 2003 SC 355) in which it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that all private colleges, who are un-aided from the Government have liberty to give admissions at their own with a restriction only that the University calendar has to be followed by the State Unaided Technical Colleges. The further case of the petitioners is that the Course of Diploma in D-Pharmacy for the Academic Session 2003-2004 was started from 1st of July, 2003 and in view of the letter Annex. 5, dated 21-5-2003 issued by the State of Rajasthan, the petitioners at their own means managed to admit 30 students in the first year Diploma Course in D-Pharmacy and that Course was of two years. It may be stated here that during the course of arguments, it has been frankly admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that out of these 30 students, 9 students were of management quota taken from the merit list prepared by the respondent No.4 Co-ordinator after holding Pre-Pharmacy Test, 2003 and counselling. Thus, there remains dispute of only 21 students admitted by the petitioners at their own choice. The further case of the petitioners is that a letter dated 1st July, 2003 (Annex. 6) was issued by the Coordinator, Pre-Pharmacy Test, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (respondent No. 4) to the petitioners and the same was received by them on 5th July, 2003 and in that letter Annex. 6, it was stated that the Coordinator was going to start the counselling of qualified candidates of PPT-2003 from 7th July to 9th July, 2003 at 9.00 AM at Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, New Campus, JNV University, Jodhpur. The further case of the petitioners is that they were not aware that the students would be provided by the respondent No. 4-Coor-dinator. The further case of the petitioners is that in the counselling, the petitioners were given a list of admitted students on 17-7-2003 and in that list, the names of 39 students were shown. The petitioners admitted all these 39 students in the Diploma Course in D-Pharmacy. The letter dated 17-7-2003 along with the list of 39 students is marked as Annex. 7. The further case of the petitioners is that they were under the impression that no further students would be given by the respondent No. 4-Coordinator, but on 19-7-2003, a list of 10 students was given to the petitioners for admission in the same Course. The sanctioned strength of students for admission in the Diploma Course in D-Pharmacy was only 60, while the petitioners have admitted 79 students in the following manner: (i) 30 students were admitted by the petitioners at their own choice which include 9 students of management quota taken from the merit list prepared by the respondent No. 4-Coordinator. (ii) 39 students were admitted as per list given by respondent No. 4-Coordinator through Annex. 7 (iii) 10 students were admitted as per additional list given by the respondent No. 4- Coordinator on 19-7-2003. Total : : 79 students The further case of the petitioners is that 30 students including 9 students of management quota were admitted by them at their own means and if excess students were admitted by them in the Diploma Course in D-Pharmacy, a prayer was made by them to the respondents to allow the excess students to complete their Course and it was also prayed that since 21 excess admissions were made by them, they may be reduced proportionately during the next academic year. However, the said representation of the petitioners was rejected by the State of Rajasthan through impugned order Annex. 8 dated 11-9-2003 and that order Annex. 8 has been challenged by the petitioners in this writ petition on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows : (i) That there is a clause of Excess Admission in AICTE Handbook for Approval Process (Academic Year 2003-2004) at page No. 43 item q and the same reads as follows :

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.