1 CGHC010261672022 2026:CGHC:40389 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3531 of 2022 1 - Supriya Ghosh D/o Kiran Ghosh Aged About 28 Years R/o H.No. 12, Ward No. 1, Bengali Camp, Old Market, Post Bade Bacheli, District Dantewade, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pankaj Garg S/o Ravi Prakash Garg Aged About 41 Years R/o H. No. 364, Ward No. 8, Near Poonam Hotel, Post Kirandul, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh 3 - Rishav Mittal S/o Sudama Mittal Aged About 26 Years R/o Sattipara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Anup Kumar Jain S/o Pruthwi Raj Jain Aged About 48 Years R/o L- 01, Ward No. 14, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5 - Mukesh Kumar Jain S/o Pruthwi Raj Jain Aged About 52 Years R/o L- 01, Ward No. 14, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Father's Name Wrongly Mentioned In Mark Sheet At Page 24 ), --- Petitioners Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.09.25 13:09:29 +0530 2 2 - Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education Through The Secretary, C.G.B.S.E, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Board of School And Technical Education Through Its Secretary, Building No. A -6, Nature City , Mungeli Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Registrar Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council, Quarter No. 88, Sector - 2, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Registrar Pharmacy Council Of India, Nbcc Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2, Community Centre, Maa Anandmayee Marg, Okhla, Phase - 1, New Delhi, --- Respondents WPC No. 4158 of 2022 1 - Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Netu Ram Verma Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Village- Sahila, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghanshyam Singh Rawte S/o Anand Ram Rawte Aged About 39 Years R/o Village- Surdongar, Dondi, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through The Secretary, C.G.B.S.E., Pension Bada, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Board Of School And Technical Education Through Its Secretary, Building No. A-6, Nature City, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 4 - Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council Quarter No.- 88, Sector- 2, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Registrar, Pharmacy Council Of India N.B.C.C. Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2, Community Centre, Maa Anandmayee Marg, Okhla, Phase-1, New Delhi --- Respondents WPC No. 3922 of 2022 1 - Chandan Mandal S/o Shri C. S. Mandal Aged About 26 Years R/o Qtr. No. 1/ B, 2 D Type, Teachers Colony, Dalli-Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through The Secretary, C. G. B. S. E. Pension Bada, Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Board Of School And Technical Education Through Its Secretary, Building No. A-6, Nature City, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Registrar, Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council Quarter No. 88, Sector- 2, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Registrar, Pharmacy Council Of India N B C C Center, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2, Community Center, Maa Anandmayee Marg, Okhla, Phase-1, New Delhi --- Respondents WPC No. 4100 of 2022 4 1 - Tamraj Prasad Sahu S/o Janak Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o H.No. 113, Ward No. 9, Somani, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sukhit Ram S/o Dhanku Ram Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Gadhula, Bori, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Pradeep Kumar Sahu S/o Janak Ram Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Tilai, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Raj Kumar Verma S/o Prem Lal Verma Aged About 33 Years R/o H.No. 261, Ward No. 14, Dilapahari, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - Teeka Das S/o Auwal Das Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Gadhula, Bori, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - Vijay Kumar S/o Galesh Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Singhola, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Secondary Education Through The Secretary, C.G.B.S.E. Pension Bada, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Board Of School And Technical Education Through Its Secretary, Building, No. A-6, Nature City, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Registrar Chhattisgarh State Pharmacy Council Quarter No. 88, Sector - 2, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 5 - Registrar Pharmacy Council Of India, Nbcc Centre, 3rd Floor, Plot No. 2, Community Centre, Maa Anandmayee Marg, Okhla, Phase - 1, New Delhi. --- Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha & Mr. Vivek Agrawal, Advocates. For State : Mr. Vivek Verma, G.A. For Respondent/C.G.BSE : Mr. Manas Vajpai, Counsel on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4. : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. All these captioned writ petitions share a common background and involve the same issues, therefore, they were clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience, Writ Petition (C) No. 3531 of 2022 is treated as the lead case for the purpose of deciding all the writ petitions. The petitioners in the said writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith produce the entire records of the case, for the perusal before this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Orders dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure-P/1) Orders dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure-P/2) 6 Orders dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure-P/3) Orders dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure-P/4) Orders dated 29.06.2022 (Annexure-P/5) Passed by the Respondent No. 4 i.e., The Registrar C.G. State Pharmacy Council, Raipur, C.G. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities in particular the respondent No. 4 to register the petitioners as Pharmacists and issue a Pharmacists Registration Certificate in their name. 10.4 Any other relief (s) that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.” 4. Brief facts of the case as reflected from the petition is that the present Writ Petitions are being filed against the orders passed by Respondent No. 4, whereby the registration of the Petitioners as Pharmacists has been cancelled/rejected on the ground that their 10th/12th Class examinations were passed from the Chhattisgarh Board of School & Technical Education, whose affiliation/equivalence was allegedly not valid at the relevant time. It is further stated by the petitioners that they pursued and successfully completed their 10th/12th Class education from the said Board during the period from 07.11.2012 to 07.03.2015, when the Board had valid affiliation/equivalence granted by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education, Raipur, under the signatures of its President and Secretary. Despite the validity of the petitioners' educational qualifications during the relevant period, respondent No. 4 has treated their mark sheets as invalid 7 for the purpose of registration as Pharmacists and has consequently rejected/cancelled their registration. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners seek quashing of the impugned orders Annexures P/1 to P/5, and a consequential direction to Respondent No. 4 to register the petitioners as Pharmacists and issue Pharmacist Registration Certificates in their favour. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders passed by respondent No.4 are erroneous, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to law, as the petitioners had obtained their Class 10th/12th education from the C.G. Board of School and Technical Education during the period when valid equivalence granted on 07.11.2012 was in force, which was subsequently withdrawn only with effect from 07.03.2015. It is submitted that pursuant to the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by this Court in W.P.C. No.604/2014, the petitioners were permitted to continue their higher studies, and accordingly they pursued and completed their Pharmacy Degree/Diploma without any fault on their part. The subsequent order dated 12.10.2018, declaring the marksheets issued by the said Board invalid and denying consequential benefits, is self-contradictory and defeats the intent of the earlier orders of this Court, particularly when the petitioners had completed their education during the subsistence of the equivalence. Learned counsel further submits that the Council of Boards of School Education also recorded that the temporary equivalence was withdrawn only with effect from 07.03.2015, and 8 the relevant eligibility/equivalence material of the C.G. Board of Secondary Education recognized the said Board during the concerned period. It is therefore contended that the petitioners, having acted bona fide and having acquired their qualifications when the equivalence was operative, cannot be prejudiced for any subsequent administrative action, and, particularly in view of orders passed in favour of similarly situated candidates, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to treat the petitioners’ Higher Secondary marksheets as valid and register them as Pharmacists by issuing the requisite Registration Certificates. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the impugned orders were passed in accordance with law after withdrawal of the equivalence with effect from 07.03.2015, and that the petitioners’ subsequent studies cannot validate an unrecognized qualification. Hence, no interference is warranted and all the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 would contend that the petitioner admittedly completed his 10th/12th from Board of School & Technical Education (C.G.), which is not an approved Board. He would next contend that verification sought by the Chhattisgarh Medical Council from COBSE has confirmed that the said Board does not appear in the list of member Boards. He would next contend that the temporary equivalence granted on 07.11.2012 to the said Board was illegally given, and has been 9 suspended on 11.03.2014. He would nex contend that the suspension order was challenged in a batch of petitions led by WPC No. 604/2014, decided by this Court wherein directions were issued requiring a final decision by the Board within 3 months. Students were given temporary protection only until the final order. He would next contend that COBSE thereafter passed order dated 03.07.2015, revoking the temporary equivalence. He would next contend that the revocation order was upheld by this Court in WPC No. 1556/2016, and the judgment was affirmed in W.A. No. 547/2017 by order dated 07.10.2023. He would next contend that in order to safeguard the interest of the affected students on 12.10.2018 vide Annexure P-10 the Respondent No.2 took a policy decision that the students who studied between 07.11.2012 to 07.03.2015 were permitted to appear as private students, but without any entitlement to mark-sheets of the said unrecognized Board. He would lastly contend that since the petitioners did not study during this protected period, and since their 10th/12th is from an unrecognized Board, their registration was rightly cancelled and once the final orders of 03.07.2015 and 07.10.2023 attained finality, no protection remains available. Therefore, the order impugned is well merited which do not call for any interference by this Court. 8. No representation is made on behalf of Respondent No.4 despite service of notice. 10 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 10. Perused the order dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure P/1), 24.06.2022 (Annexure P/2), 06.07.2022 (Annexure P/3), 29.06.2022 (Annexure P/4), 29.06.2022 (Annexure P/5) whereby the respondent No. 4 has cancelled the registration of Petitioners as Pharmacists. 11. From perusal of the documents it is apparent that it is not in dispute that the petitioners have completed their 10th/12th from Board of School & Technical Education (C.G.) and the temporary equivalence of the said Board has been suspended on 11.03.2014 followed by a final order of COBSE dated 03.07.2015 revoking equivalence. This Court by order dated 26/09/2017 in WPC No. 1556/2016 and order dated 07/10/2023 passed in W.A. No. 547/2017 maintained the revocation order. 12. The protection granted by the Division Bench in WPC No. 604/2014 was only interim and was expressly limited until the final decision of the authorities. Once the revocation order of 03.07.2015 was passed and upheld, the provisional protection came to an end. From perusal of the aforesaid orders it is crystal clear that the petitioner’s case does not fall in the special category of students protected under order dated 12.10.2018, who studied between 07.11.2012 to 07.03.2015. The petitioners completed their 10th or 12th standard examinations in the respective years of 2012, 2012, 2014, 2012, and 2013. However, 11 official records indicate that the Board was unrecognized during this period. Consequently, legal protection was limited strictly to permitting their appearance as private candidates, without conferring any benefits or validity to the Board's mark-sheets. 13. Since the petitioners never possessed a valid 10th/12th mark- sheet recognized by any competent authority. Consequently, the registration granted to them was based upon an invalid qualification and the respondent was justified in revisiting and cancelling it after proper notice. In view of the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 06.07.2022 reflects due consideration of the petitioners’ case and is based on settled judicial and administrative findings and does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or arbitrariness. 14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion under the given facts & circumstances of the case, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court. 15. Accordingly, all the instant petitions being devoid of substance is liable to be and hereby dismissed. 16. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju