1 2025:CGHC:56510-LB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 840 of 2025 Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai Through - Its Registrar Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Bhilai, Newai, Post Newai, Bhilai District - Durg, C.G. --- Appellant(s) versus 1. Mona College Of Pharmacy Through - The Secretary, Mona College Of Pharmacy, Dr. Ritesh Kesharwani Aged 53 Years S/o Shri Bhagwan Prasad Kesharwani R/o Sarangarh, District - Sarangarh (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary To The Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Medical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, P.S.- Rakhi, Raipur, C.G. 3. Pharmacy Council Of India Through - The Registrar-Cum-Secretary Nbcc Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2, Community Centre, Maa Anandamai Marg, Okhla Phase - I Landmark - (Near Hotel Crowne Plaza) New Delhi – 110020 4. The Director Directorate Of Technical Education Block - 3, Third/ Fourth Floor Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.21 10:27:00 +0530 2 For Respondent/ College : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent- UOI : Mr. R.K. Mishra, DSGI Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 20.11.2025 1. The appellant/ respondent in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 5497 of 2025 by which, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the petition filed by the writ petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned writ Court. 2. The writ appeal has been filed with the following prayer:- “ It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that; the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash, set-aside the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 passed in W.P.C. No. 5497/2025 (ANNEXURE-A/1) by allowing the instant writ appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner college. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to further issue any other direction's/orders, as if may 3 deem fit and appropriate.” 3. Facts of the case are that the respondent college (writ petitioner) is an educational institution imparting pharmacy education and running the Diploma in Pharmacy (D. Pharma) course under recognition granted by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI), the statutory authority constituted under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. PCI has granted approval to the institution for the academic session 2023–24, which has been duly extended for the academic year 2025–2026 with an intake capacity of 60 seats. Pursuant to the said recognition, the University/respondent (appellant herein) had also granted affiliation for 60 seats for the academic sessions 2023–24 and 2024–25 vide orders dated 19.08.2023 and 01.10.2024. However, when the respondent/ college applied for affiliation for the academic session 2025–26, the University, by the order dated 03.10.2025 granted affiliation only for 30 seats, curtailing 50% of the approved intake. The reason assigned in the order was that the Principal and faculty members of the college were allegedly not ratified under Statute 19 of the College Code and that the decision was taken in the 134th meeting of the Executive Council. Against the same the respondent college preferred the writ petition which was disposed off by the learned Single Judge against which the present appeal has been filled by the University/ appellant. 4 4. The learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2025 and the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- “ XXX 6. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners undertake on behalf of the petitioners that the Principal and required faculties as per norms shall be ratified within 6 months from the date of issuing of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 03.10.2025. 7. In view of above undertaking, if the petitioners are not complied with the order dated 03.10.2025, the respondent-University has right to take appropriate action against the petitioners. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and specially the undertaking given by the petitioners, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions on the undertaking that the petitioners shall rectify all the deficiencies within 6 moriths from the date of issuing of the letter dated 03.10.2025 and the petitioners are directed to comply mandatory conditions. 9. Meanwhile, It is directed that the sanctioned intake capacity of 60 students for the D.Pharmacy/B.Pharmacy Diploma course at the 5 petitioners' college shall remain intact as per the notification issued by Pharmacy Council of India. Meaning thereby the petitioners are entitled to participate in the counselling for the intake of 60 seats for Session 2025-2026. 10. It is made clear that if the petitioners do not comply their undertaking for fulfilling the requisite conditions as mentioned in the impugned order dated 03.10.2025, this Order shall lose its efficacy. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant University submits that the impugned order of Learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law, as it failed to appreciate the factual matrix and statutory provisions governing affiliation. It is contended that the respondent/college was repeatedly informed of deficiencies in the institution since 2023 and given multiple opportunities, including affidavits undertaking to remove the deficiencies, but failed to take effective steps to rectify them. The process for appointment of regular Principal and teachers is prescribed under Statute 19 and the respondent/college has not complied with these norms, leaving the institution without adequate faculty to maintain academic standards. The appellant University, acting under Sections 4(15), 23(25), and 23(44) of the Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand 6 Technical University Act, 2004, and Statute 18, was obliged to ensure compliance and maintain the quality of education in affiliated institutions. It is further submitted that the Pharmacy Council of India granted approval for intake based on online submissions, whereas the University carried out physical inspections, which revealed several deficiencies. The respondent/college, by habitually relying on undertakings rather than compliance, has misused the process to secure affiliation in the past. In view of continued non-compliance and after providing sufficient opportunities, the Executive Council in its meeting dated 01.10.2025, validly exercised its power to limit the affiliation to 30 seats to compel corrective action by the institution. Learned counsel emphasizes that the University acted strictly in accordance with law, statutory provisions, and norms of PCI/ UGC/AICTE, and that the respondent/ college cannot claim relief while disregarding statutory obligations. It is also submitted that the respondent bypassed the prescribed mechanism of appeal to the Governor/Chancellor and directly approached the High Court, thereby failing to exhaust alternative remedies. In light of the above, it is contended that the order of learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside, and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/College opposes the submissions advanced by the appellant/University 7 and submits that the college has already filed an affidavit undertaking committing to ratify the appointment of the Principal and requisite faculty in accordance with the statutory norms within six months from the date of the University’s letter dated 03.10.2025. It is further submitted that the University, by reducing the sanctioned intake capacity from 60 to 30 seats, has acted unlawfully, without jurisdiction, and in a manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires manner, exceeding the powers vested in it under the relevant statutes. Learned counsel contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just, proper, and in accordance with law, and therefore does not warrant any interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 8. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the appellant University has failed to make out any ground for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.10.2025. The respondent college has filed an affidavit undertaking to regularize the appointment of the Principal and requisite faculty within six months from the date of the University’s letter dated 03.10.2025. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that in view of this undertaking, the sanctioned intake of 60 students for the D. Pharmacy course shall remain intact, while ensuring that the petitioners comply with the mandatory conditions within the 8 stipulated time. The Executive Council of the University had exercised its powers under Sections 4(15), 23(25), and 23(44) of the Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University Act, 2004, and Statute 18, to ensure compliance with statutory norms and maintain academic standards. The reduction of intake capacity to 30 seats was a conditional measure to compel the college to rectify deficiencies, and not a final or punitive decision. The respondent college, having undertaken to comply with statutory requirements, has demonstrated willingness to regularize faculty appointments. 9. Further, the scope of interference in an intra-court appeal is limited to cases where the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. In the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly directed to keep the intake capacity of 60 students intact. It is also observed by learned Single Judge that if the petitioner do not comply their undertaking for fulfilling the requisite condition as mentioned in the order dated 03.10.2023 the order in writ petition shall lose its efficacy. 10. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti