Supreme Court Directs PCI to Recognize Past Admissions of Shirpur Education Society in Pharmacy Courses (31 January 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 31 January 2020
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Can a regulatory body reduce the student intake of an existing educational institution? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Shirpur Education Society, which was in a dispute with the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) regarding the permitted student intake for its pharmacy courses. The court’s decision focused on protecting the interests of students already admitted, while keeping the larger legal questions open for future consideration.

Case Background

The Shirpur Education Society established the RC Patel Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research College in 1992, after obtaining necessary approvals from the AICTE, PCI, the Director of Technical Education, Government of Maharashtra, and the North Maharashtra University. Initially, the college had an intake of 30 students, which was increased to 60 in 2001. In 2010, the AICTE issued regulations allowing for an increased intake of 180 students, plus an additional 60 students for a second shift.

Following these regulations, the Society increased its intake to 240 (180 in the regular shift and 60 in the second shift) on 23.08.2010, with prior approval from the Government of Maharashtra on 30.06.2010 and the Director of Technical Education on 09.11.2011. However, in 2013, the Director of Technical Education reduced the regular intake from 180 to 100, while keeping the second shift intake unchanged. This reduction was challenged by the Society in the High Court.

For the next few years, the AICTE approved a total intake of 240, but the Director of Technical Education repeatedly reduced it. The High Court intervened each time, maintaining the status quo through interim orders. In 2018, despite the college being compliant with all regulations, the AICTE web portal showed a reduced intake. The Society’s representations were unsuccessful, leading them to file a writ petition in the High Court, which was eventually dismissed.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the Society’s writ petition (WP 7222/2019), which challenged the reduction in intake capacity. The High Court noted the conflict between AICTE and PCI regarding regulatory authority over pharmaceutical education. While AICTE had permitted a higher intake, PCI restricted it. The High Court upheld AICTE’s decision to reduce the intake to 100 for the undergraduate course, with no admissions permitted in the second shift, based on the AICTE’s 2018 regulations and guidelines.

Legal Framework

The All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 empowers AICTE to regulate technical education, which includes pharmaceutical education. The AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010 allowed for increased student intake and second shifts. However, the AICTE’s 2018 regulations restricted the undergraduate intake to 100, with no second shift admissions.

The Pharmacy Act, 1948, empowers the PCI to prescribe norms and standards for pharmaceutical education and the registration of pharmacists. The PCI had issued public notices stating that second shift admissions would not be recognized and that the maximum intake would not exceed 100. The B. Pharma course Regulations of 2014 also stipulated that the PCI would prescribe the maximum intake capacity.

The conflict arose from the overlapping regulatory powers of the AICTE and PCI, with both claiming primacy in the field of pharmaceutical education.

Arguments

Appellant (Shirpur Education Society) Arguments:

• The AICTE violated the principle of natural justice by reducing the intake without providing a fair opportunity to the Society to be heard.

• The Society was entitled to continue with its existing intake capacity, as there was no specific bar in the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 or its regulations preventing existing institutions from maintaining their current intake and shifts.

• The regulations and policies should not be applied to existing colleges, as they were primarily intended for new institutions.

• Reducing the intake capacity without a compelling necessity would severely curtail the Society’s right to carry on its business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

• The reduction in intake would lead to financial difficulties for the college due to surplus teaching staff and infrastructure.

Respondent (AICTE and PCI) Arguments:

• The PCI had clearly stated in 2010 that second shift admissions would not be recognized and that the maximum intake would not exceed 100, through a public notice dated 24.01.2010 and letter dated 10.09.2010.

• The B. Pharma course Regulations of 2014 stipulated that the PCI would prescribe the maximum intake capacity.

• The AICTE changed its policy to reduce intake to avoid inconsistencies with PCI’s decisions and to protect the interests of students.

• The Approval Process Handbook 2019-2020 clearly stipulates that the maximum intake allowed in a Technical Institution shall be as per the Appendix 3, which limits the undergraduate intake to 100.

• The PCI does not register students of the second shift or those admitted beyond the prescribed intake, and allowing the college to admit such students would be detrimental to the students’ future.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues for determination in this case. However, the core issue revolves around the conflict between the AICTE and PCI regarding the regulation of pharmaceutical education and the consequential impact on the student intake of the appellant’s college.

The sub-issue that the court dealt with was regarding the protection of the students who were admitted in the college.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court did not cite any authorities in the judgment.

Judgment

The Court considered the authorities as follows:

• All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987: The court acknowledged the powers of AICTE under this Act to regulate technical education.
• Pharmacy Act, 1948: The court acknowledged the powers of PCI under this Act to regulate pharmaceutical education and the registration of pharmacists.
• AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulations, 2010: The court noted that these regulations allowed for increased student intake and second shifts.
• AICTE Regulations, 2018: The court noted that these regulations restricted the undergraduate intake to 100, with no second shift admissions.
• B. Pharma course Regulations of 2014: The court noted that these regulations stipulated that the PCI would prescribe the maximum intake capacity.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to protect the interests of students who had already been admitted to the college. The court recognized the confusion caused by the conflicting regulations of the AICTE and PCI and the fact that the college had approached the High Court in a timely manner. The court also took into account that the High Court had granted interim orders allowing the college to admit students up to a total intake of 240.

Logical Reasoning

The court did not delve into the merits of the AICTE’s decision to reduce the intake or the PCI’s stance on second shifts. Instead, it focused on the immediate need to protect the students who had already been admitted. The court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the college had approached the High Court in a timely manner and had obtained interim orders allowing it to admit students up to a certain capacity.

The court also noted that the AICTE and PCI had agreed to move in a concerted manner in the future, which would hopefully avoid such conflicts in the future.

The court stated:

“…the interests of students who were admitted up to and inclusive of the academic year 2018-19 and who had graduated would have to be protected.”

“Except such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that all admissions made by the petitioner’s college, requires to be regularized and those students who had graduated in the past need to be protected.”

“The PCI is, therefore, directed also to give consequential benefit of registration to such students who graduated in the concerned undergraduate courses.”

There was no majority or minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court prioritized the interests of students who had already been admitted to the college, despite the ongoing regulatory conflict.
• Regulatory bodies should ensure clarity and consistency in their regulations to avoid confusion and hardship for educational institutions and students.
• Interim orders of the High Court can play a crucial role in protecting the interests of parties involved in legal disputes.
• The court did not resolve the larger issue of which regulatory body has primacy in the field of pharmaceutical education, leaving it open for future consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the PCI to recognize the admissions of students who were admitted up to the academic year 2018-19, with a total intake capacity of 240 (180 in the first shift and 60 in the second shift). The PCI was also directed to provide consequential registration benefits to these students. Students admitted within the 100-seat capacity for the academic year 2019-20 were also to be given due recognition and registration. However, students admitted beyond this capacity and those admitted in the second shift for the academic year 2019-20 were not to be given such benefits.

Development of Law

This judgment did not establish any new legal principles but emphasized the importance of protecting the interests of students in cases of regulatory conflict. The ratio decidendi of the case is that in situations of regulatory confusion, the court will prioritize the protection of students who have already been admitted to an educational institution. The court did not change any previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Shirpur Education Society case provides relief to students who were admitted to the college during a period of regulatory uncertainty. While the court did not resolve the larger dispute between AICTE and PCI, it prioritized the protection of students’ interests and directed the PCI to recognize past admissions. This case highlights the need for clarity and consistency in regulatory frameworks to avoid confusion and hardship for educational institutions and students.