✦ High Court of India · 03 Jan 2025

High Court · 2025

Case Details High Court of India · 03 Jan 2025

Court

High Court of India

Decided

03 Jan 2025

Bench

Not available

Length

3,878 words

Acts & Sections

It is submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Technical University Act 2000

Cited in this judgment

4. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M, Integrated Academy Of Management And Technology, Ghaziabad Thru. Its Prin. Shri Harjeet Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

5. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Ram Swaroop Memorial College Of E/M Pharmacy, Lko. Thru. Registrar Dr. Satish Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

6. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M, Chhatrapati Shivaji College Of Pharmacy, Kanpur Thru. Shri Pankaj Babu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin.Secy ,Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

7. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sultanpur Society Of Healthcare And Edu. Thru. Treasurer Sri Abhishek Singh, And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tech. Edu. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prafulla Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

8. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M Imirc College Thru. Pravesh Kumar Administrator Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tech. Edu. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

9. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M Sharda Devi Mahavidyalaya Thru. Avinash Kumar Rao Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

10. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 47 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pt. Ram Charitra Mishra Mahavidyalaya Shiksha Sansthan, Thru. Sharavan Kumar Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prafulla Tiwari,Lalta Prasad Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

11. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 49 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M Awadh Para Medical College And Institute Thru. Sanjay Kumar Gupta Administrator Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

12. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M R.K. Institute Of Pharmacy, Prayagraj Thru. Shri. Anshu Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

13. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 51 of 2025 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Scm College Of Pharmacy Thru. Shri Satish Singh Administrator Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

14. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 52 of 2025 Petitioner :- Maa Kaushilya Charitable Trust Subaspur Jaunpur Thru. Shri Avinash Kumar Rao Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Tech. Edu. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

15. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M Adhunic Institute Of Education And Research, Ghaziabad Thru. Shri Sachin Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

16. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 54 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M Rajshree College Of Pharmacy Thru. Shri Dushyant Kumar Maheshwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

17.Case :- WRIT - C No. - 55 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Siddhi Vinayak Institute Of Pharmacy, Bareilly Thru. Autho. Signatory Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

18. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gurudev Innovative College Of Pharmacy, Auraiya Thru. Authorized Signatory Ashish Porwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

19. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 61 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Gulab Singh College Of Pharmacy, Auraiya Thru. Authorized Signatory, Ashish Porwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

20. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ishan Sewa Trust Lko. Thru. Authorized Signatory, Shashi Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Paavan Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

21. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 63 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M Prabhat College Of Pharmacy, Thru. Its Shri Sunil Kumar Singh Manager Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

22. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 64 of 2025 Petitioner :- Late Pooran Ram Praksh Dixit College Of Pharmacy, Hamirpur Thru. Managing Director Sanjeev Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjana Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

23. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 78 of 2025 Petitioner :- Madhu Vachaspati Institute Of Pharmacy Thru. Registrar Samar Abbas Prayagraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

24. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 79 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vidyawati Nigam Memorial College Pharmacy Kalvanganj Thru. Samar Abbas Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Technical Edu. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

25. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 80 of 2025 Petitioner :- R S Pharmacy College Thru. Authorized Signatory Anupam Mishra Distt. Basti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

26. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 82 of 2025 Petitioner :- S.V.M. Pharmacy College Thru. Beerendra Kumar Saroj Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Technical Education And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyanshu Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh

27. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 83 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rani Ganesh Kunwari College Of Pharmacy, Amethi Thru. Authorized Signatory, Anil Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief /Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Technical Education Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi,Ravi Singh Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Prafulla Tiwari, Mr. Paavan Awasthi, Mr. Rajat Ranjan Singh, Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsels for petitioners, Mr. Rahul Shukla, learned State counsel, Mr. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for Pharmacy Council of India.

2. Since a common question is involved in all these petitions, the same are being adjudicated upon by a common order.

3. Petitions have been filed challenging various orders whereby grant of afÏliation to the petitioners' Institutions for a conduct of B Pharm Course for the academic year 2024-2025 have been rejected by the State Government. Also under challenge are the consequential orders passed by the University.

4. Urgency has been cited by learned counsel for petitioners on the ground that counselling process for the aforesaid course is to commence from today but in view of impugned orders, the petitioners' Institutions have been excluded from the counselling process. Since written instructions have already been provided to learned State Counsel and in view of urgency indicated, requiring counter afÏdavit to be filed by the opposite parties is being dispensed with and the petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself on the basis of material on record as evidenced from the reasoning indicated in the impugned order itself and in term of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Ors. versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that for the purposes of grant of afÏliation for conduct of the aforesaid courses, the Government Order dated 05.01.2024 has been issued prescribing the procedure required for such grant of afÏliation. The said Government Order prescribes a detailed procedure whereunder first an Institution is required to apply for grant of no objection certificate by the State Government, which if granted is then required to be submitted before the Pharmacy Council of India in terms of notification dated 27.09.2021 issued by the Pharmacy Council of India. In case Pharmacy Council of India (P.C.I) grants its approval, the matter is then required to be applied by the Institution concerned for grant of afÏliation to the Technical University concerned, which in these cases is the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University.

6. It is submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Technical University Act, 2000 and Regulations framed thereunder prescribed a detailed procedure for grant of such afÏliation. The relevant is Chapter V Section 23 and Chapter VI Regulation 6.01.

7. It has been submitted that the aforesaid Government Order, Act and Regulations framed thereunder clearly indicate a detailed procedure required to be followed prior to grant of no objection certificate by State Government and includes various factors to be taken into consideration such as the applications being scrutinized by a Committee and a separate Committee being constituted under the Chairman ship of a person nominated by the District Magistrate which is then required to conduct physical inspection of the colleges concerned. The recommendations are then uploaded on the website whereafter only the no objection certificate is either granted or declined.

8. It is therefore submitted that a detailed examination including physical inspection of the Institution in question takes place at the very inception pertaining to grant of no objection certified by the State Government.

9. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to the Act of 2000 and the Regulations framed thereunder to indicate that even after grant of approval by P.C.I, for the purposes of afÏliation, another detailed procedure is required to be followed in terms of Regulation 6.01 of the Regulations framed under the Act, which also require satisfaction of the Vice-chancellor with regard to norms indicated under Regulation 6.01(b)(c) of the Regulation. It is submitted that for the purposes of such afÏliation, the Vice- chancellor also is required to appoint a panel of Inspectors to inspect the college concerned and make a detailed report on all relevant aspects whereafter the Executive Council is required to constitute a Committee for recommending afÏliations and it is only thereafter that the recommendations of the AfÏliation Committee is forwarded to the State Government by the University in terms of Section 23(2) of the Act.

10. It is submitted that in the present case, the grant of afÏliation by State Government has been declined on the twin grounds that no feasibility study has been undertaken by the University and that there is a constant decline in students seeking to enroll in the B Pharm Course. It is submitted that both the aspects are required to be seen only at the stage of issuance of the no objection certificate and can not be a criteria to decline afÏliation subsequently particularly once the P.C.I. has already granted its approval.

11. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 02.01.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and has adverted to the University resolutions dated 06.11.2024 and 30.11.2024. It is submitted that on the basis of material before it, State Government reached a subjective satisfaction that since a feasibility study had not been undertaken by the University concerned, the grant of afÏliation would be improper and has therefore been declined on that ground and therefore prior to passing of impugned order, a report has also been called from the University concerned which was submitted by the University on 21.11.2024.

12. It is submitted that the instructions clearly indicate the aspect that there is a constant decline in number of students enrolling for the aforesaid course and therefore was an aspect required to be considered in terms of Regulation 6.01(c) (i) of the Regulations.

13. It is therefore submitted that since student intake is constantly declining with regard to the aforesaid course, the State Government did not find it conducive to grant afÏliations to new colleges for purposes of quality education.

14. Mr. Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for University concerned on the basis of instructions submits that a detailed procedure pertaining to issuance of no objection certificate by the State Government, grant of approval by the P.C.I. and recommendation for grant of afÏliation by the University is already indicated in the Government Order dated 05.01.2024, the Act of 2000 and Regulations framed thereunder. It is submitted that the procedure as required to be followed at the instance of University as indicated in Regulation 6.01 under Chapter VI and Regulations has been followed by the University whereafter only recommendation regarding afÏliation has been made by the AfÏliation Committee of the University for further action to be taken by the State Government.

15. Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for P.C.I. on the basis of material on record submits that the P.C.I. has already granted approval to all Institutions concerned which is based on the no objection certificate issued by the State Government.

16. It is admitted between learned counsel for parties that all the Institutions concerned have applied for fresh afÏliation for conducting the B Pharm Course for the academic year 2024-2025. It is also admitted that on the basis of applications submitted, no objection certificate was issued by the State Government to all these Institutions whereafter the P.C.I. has also granted its approval to all Institutions. The dispute only pertains to refusal of State Government in issuing directions for afÏliation of petitioners' Institutions with the University.

17. A perusal of the impugned orders will make it evident that grant of afÏliation to all petitioners' Institutions has been declined primarily on the ground that prior to recommendation being made for grant of afÏliation, no feasibility study was undertaken and also on the ground that there is a constant decline of students' applications for enrollment in the aforesaid courses.

18. So far as the first ground is concerned, it would be conducive to advert to the Government Order dated 05.01.2024 which provides a complete procedure for grant of no objection certificate by the State Government.

19. The aforesaid Government Order, particularly paragraphs 11 onwards clearly indicate that upon submission of an application, a scrutiny committee is required to be constituted by the University concerned and in case approved, the matter is referred to another Committee headed by a nominee of the District Magistrate and includes the Vice-chancellor of the University. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Government Order clearly indicate that the said Committee will conduct a ground/physical inspection of the institute concerned with video-graphy and photographs also being taken. It is on the basis of recommendation of this Committee that the State Government issues or declines a no objection certificate.

20. The aforesaid Government Order therefore clearly indicates the fact that prior to issuance of no objection certificate by the State Government, onsite/physical inspection is a mandatory condition.

21. It is on the basis of this no objection certificate that the P.C.I. grants its approval in terms of the circular dated 27.09.2021, whereafter the matter is placed before the University again with regard to recommendation for grant of afÏliation, which is governed by Chapter VI of the Regulations framed under the Act of 2000.

22. A perusal of Regulation 6 of the aforesaid Chapter clearly indicates the fact that upon an application for afÏliation being made, the Vice- chancellor is required to be satisfied with regard to certain norms prior to placing the application before Executive Council. The norms indicate various aspects including infrastructure and demand for technical education in the locality. In case the Vice-chancellor is satisfied, a panel of inspectors is appointed to inspect the college and make a detailed report. Regulations 6.04 indicates that the Executive Council shall constitute a Committee for recommending afÏliations. The AfÏliation Committee recommendations of thereafter is to be forwarded by the University to the State Government in terms of Section 23(2) of the Act whereafter upon receipt of State Government approval, Executive Council of the University is required to grant privileges of afÏliation.

23. It is a relevant fact that by means of impugned order the grant of afÏliation has been rejected on the ground that no feasibility study has been undertaken.

24. Clearly in terms of discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that a feasibility study/ onsite/ physical inspection is required to be undertaken not only by the University but by the State Government itself at the stage of issuance of no objection certificate.

25. There does not appear to be any provision either under the Government Order dated 05.01.2024, the Act of 2000 all regulations framed thereunder for such a feasibility study being mandatory provision for a third time prior to issuance of afÏliation.

26. The aspect that since there is no requirement for a feasibility study at the stage of afÏliation, the aspect of such a feasibility study being mandatory or directory, looses importance.

27. The other aspect for declining grant of afÏliation being declining enrollment by students in the aforesaid course, in the considered opinion of this Court is also an aspect which has already been considered by the Vice-chancellor concerned in terms of Chapter VI of the Regulations, particularly Regulation 6.01 (i)(c). It is on the basis of subjective satisfaction by the Vice-chancellor with regard to enrollments in terms of aforesaid Regulation that the recommendation has been made. Even otherwise, it is a risk which all the Institutions concerned are prepared to undertake and therefore would not be a factor which would require the State Government to dwell too much upon. The aspect of quality education can be strictly enforced with regard to infrastructure and quality of teachers which are provided by the Institutions and cannot be a factor dependent only upon the number of students seeking admission.

28. Learned State Counsel has adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttarakhand versus Nalanda College of Education and others reported in (2022) 16 SCC 257. However, a perusal of aforesaid judgment will make it evident that the same is inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances since in the said judgment, the State Government had decided not to grant further recognition to new colleges which was taken as a policy decision and not to increase intake capacity on grounds of necessary statistics against the need/requirement of students which would render them unemployed. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed primarily on the ground that no feasibility study has been undertaken prior to recommending afÏliation.

29. The aforesaid judgment also makes it evident that decision not to grant recognition was taken at the first stage itself and not as in the present case, at the stage of grant of afÏliation once no objection certificate has already been issued by the State Government itself.

30. The aforesaid twin aspects for rejection in the present cases therefore can be made applicable only at the initial stage of grant of no objection certificate or even at the stage of consideration by the University but not thereafter.

31. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 pertaining to the meetings of the AfÏliation Committee dated 06.11.2024 and 30.11.2024 bearing no.833923 of 2024 and 833903 of 2024 and the consequential orders passed by the University concerned are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to reconsider grant of afÏliation to petitioner Institutions in terms of recommendations made by the University and approval granted by P.C.I. Such an exercise shall be conducted by the State Government expeditiously within a period of one week from today. In case of grant of afÏliation to petitioners' Institutions, they shall be permitted to participate in the ongoing counselling process for B-Pharm Course for Academic Session 2024-25.

32. Resultantly, the petitions succeed and are allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Since a common question is involved in all these petitions, the same are being adjudicated upon by a common order.

23. It is a relevant fact that by means of impugned order the grant of afÏliation has been rejected on the ground that no feasibility study has been undertaken.

26. The aspect that since there is no requirement for a feasibility study at the stage of afÏliation, the aspect of such a feasibility study being mandatory or directory, looses importance.

32. Resultantly, the petitions succeed and are allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under It is submitted that the Uttar Pradesh Technical University Act 2000