- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.27854 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. AL-AMEEN COLLEGE OF PHARMACY NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 021 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL DR. MD. SALAHUDDIN S/O. MD. RIYAZUDDIN AGED 48 YEARS. 2. MS. POOJA M. D/O. MANJAPPA N. AGED 22 YEARS 3. SYED UWAMI S. M. S/O. SYED BURANUDDIN S. M. AGED 23 YEARS 4. MS. TANUSHREE M. D/O. MADHAVAN K. AGED 24 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE STUDYING PHARM. D(PB) COURSE FROM AL-AMEEN COLLEGE OF PHARMACY NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, HOSUR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 021. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL FOR; SRI P. S. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATES) Digitally signed by DHARMALINGAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 AND: 1. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 070 REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR. 2. THE REGISTRAR RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 070. 3. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA NBCC CENTRE, 3RD FLOOR, PLOT NO.2 COMMUNITY CENTRE, MAA ANANDAMAI MARG OKHLA PHASE – I, NEW DELHI – 110 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SACHIN B. S., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI S. S. HAVERI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY TO GRANT APPROVAL TO THE PETITIONER STUDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ADMITTED TO THE 1ST YEAR PHARM.D (PB) / 4TH YEAR PHARM.D LATERAL ENTRY COURSE BY THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2023-24 ADMITTED WITHIN THE SANCTIONED INTAKE OF 40 SEATS AND TO PERMIT THE SAID STUDENT TO PROSECUTE THE COURSE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The first petitioner-Institution and Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 students of the Institution are before this Court being aggrieved of the impugned communication at Annexure ‘F’ dated 04.10.2024, whereby the respondent-University has held that 4 students including petitioners Nos.2 to 4 herein, who were admitted by the Institution to Pharm.D (Post Baccalaureate programme) were in excess of the limit for admission prescribed in terms of the Pharm.D Regulations 2008. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Regulations of the Pharmacy Council of India, which were notified through the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 10.05.2008, prescribes the minimum qualification for admission to Pharm.D Part I course as 10 + 2 examination and a ‘pass’ in the Pharm.D course from an Institution approved by the Pharmacy Council of India under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act. Regulation 5 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 prescribes the number of admissions in the programmes prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India viz., Pharm.D programme-30 students; Pharm.D (Post Baccalaureate) Programme-10 students. However, attention of this Court is drawn to the Frequently Asked Questions published in the website of the Pharmacy Council of India, which is filed along with a memo on 21.07.2025. Learned Counsel points out that to the question “What is Pharm.D (Post Baccalaureate)?, the answer given by the council is, “Pharma.D (PB) course is a Professional Pharmacy doctoral Programme. B.Pharm graduates shall be admitted as lateral entry candidate to the 4th year of Pharm.D programme and the duration of course is 3 academic years (2 yrs of study and 1 year of internship or residency).” The learned counsel would therefore submit that when the counsel itself has admitted that B.Pharm Graduates will be admitted into the Pharm.D course as lateral entry along with the students who were admitted under the regular Pharm.D course during their 4th year and they conclude - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 the course in the 6th year along with the students who have taken up the regular course under Pharm.D, it is clear that the total capacity permitted even under the regulations are 40. 3. In that view of the matter, learned counsel would submit that the first petitioner-Institution admitted 12 students for the Pharm.D course of the year 2020-21, although the intake capacity was 30. Having regard to the total intake capacity of 40, the learned counsel would submit that admission of 13 or 14 students under the Pharm.D Baccalaureate programme will not exceed the intake capacity given to the first petitioner-Institution. 4. However, learned counsel for the Pharmacy Council of India and the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, jointly submit that when the Regulations clearly prescribe the intake capacity as 30 students for Pharm.D programme and 10 students for Post Baccalaureate programme, the learned counsel for petitioners cannot contend that there is a provision for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 exceeding the limit of 10 which is prescribed in the Regulations. It is contended that the prescription of the number of admissions per programme is based on the infrastructure, not only of the building, but also of the teachers who are required for teaching the said students. 5. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the University issued a notification on 21.11.2023 at Annexure ‘R1’ filed along with the statement of objections that the intake capacity of the first petitioner-Institution shall be restricted to 30 seats for the Pharm.D programme and 10 seats for Pharm.D particularly (Post Baccalaureate programme) and further communication was also made to the first Petitioner-Institution on 05.06.2024 that the information sent by the first petitioner- Institution regarding admission of 14 students to the Pharm.D (Post Baccalaureate programme) cannot be acceded to and it was informed that there are 4 excess students which cannot be permitted in accordance with the Regulations. It is submitted that despite such a communication being - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 made to the first petitioner-Institution on 05.06.2024 and further the University informing the first petitioner- Institution on 04.10.2024 that there are 4 excess students which cannot be permitted, the first petitioner- Institution has continued with the admission of the said students, jeopardising their career. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3- Pharmacy Council of India, seeks to place reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. M.L.R Saraswati College of Education, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 746 wherein at paragraphs No.25 and 26 it is held as under: “25. Once the University did not grant permission for the admission of the additional 80 students (over and above the sanction number of 70 students), the respondent College, which had no choice, tried to get over the problem by filing a writ petition. The High Court passed the impugned judgment on 16-8-1989 directing the University to grant approval for admission of 80 students. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 26. The High Court, in our view, was in error in allowing increase in the admission of 80 students by assuming that the ad hoc selection of teachers dated 1-5-1999 was sufficient to permit increase in students xxxxxx.” 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the petitioners, learned counsels for the respondents- Pharmacy Council of India and the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that although it is true that the Regulations stipulate the intake capacity to 30 and 10, nevertheless some doubt has been created by virtue of the answers given by the Pharmacy Council to the Frequently Asked Questions. The Council has answered such a question by saying that the admission of Pharm.D (Post Baccalaureate students) would be a lateral entry and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that the total intake capacity being 40 and the fact that the first petitioner-Institution admitted only - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 12 students under the Pharm.D programme in the year 2020-21, by admitting 14 students by way of lateral entry to the 4th semester, the intake capacity does not exceed 40. The infrastructure created by the first petitioner- Institution including the teaching faculty, would be sufficient to cater to the needs of 26 students out of the admitted intake capacity of 40. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that in such matters when the Courts are dealing with the life and career of students, the provisions of law which are extant should be read in such a way that the binding requirements have to be strictly complied. However, when this Court finds that the admission given by the first petitioner-Institution to 14 students (during the course of the writ petition it was submitted that only 3 students out of 4 continued to study in the first petitioner-Institution), would not exceed the total number of students to more than 25 and the intake capacity accorded by the University is 40, no violation is caused to the Regulations. It would - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 have been a different matter had the position been that the first petitioner-Institution had admitted 30 students to the course during the year 2020-21, that being the limit prescribed by the University. However, only 12 students were admitted in the year 2020-21 and therefore a liberal view will have to be taken to protect the interest of the students. 9. This Court has been apprised of the fact that the first petitioner-Institution had written to the Registrar of the University pleading for approval of 13 students while also undertaking that the Institution will admit 3 students lesser in the next academic year. It is therefore clear that even the first petitioner-Institution realised that it may not be permissible to take more than 10 students under the B.Pharm (Post Baccalaureate programme), but by the time these communications were made, the students had already completed more than eight months of study as on 17.09.2024. Further, by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioner-students were permitted to take - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 up the first year examination and the supplementary examination. It is now time for the students to take up the second year examination. At this juncture, by following the strict rule, if the admissions of the petitioner-students are cancelled, the career of the students will be in jeopardy. 10. This Court is also conscious of the fact that in several such matters, this Court had to pass orders keeping in mind the career of the students. However, exemplary costs have been imposed by this Court on such institutions, including a very recent order in W.P.No.18100/2024 and connected matters dated 01.09.2025 in the case of T M A E Society’s and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, where exemplary costs of Rs.75,00,000/- on each of the institutions were levied at the hands of the Hon'ble Division Bench. 11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands disposed of, with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to approve admission of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 for the Pharm.D (PB) course for the academic year 2023-24 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 onwards. The first petitioner-Institution is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the second respondent-University within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Acknowledgement for having paid the costs shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Needless to observe that the second respondent-University shall announce the results of the examination already undertaken by the petitioner-students, in terms of the interim orders passed by this Court. 12. Having regard to the facts obtained in this writ petition and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Pharmacy Council of India is requested to consider the grievance of such Institutions which are finding it difficult to admit students and therefore, whether provision can be made in the Regulations to ensure that the total intake capacity will not be exceeded but, the other restriction limiting the number of direct entry and lateral entry is removed. If such - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35539 WP No. 27854 of 2024 suggestions are given by the petitioner-Institution, the same can be considered by the Council in the interest of Institutions and the students. Pending I.As., if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT:VC