India, High Court of Patna, 31 March 2022, WP(C) 19063 of 2021
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
The Petitioner, University A, in this case is approved by the Pharmacy Council of India and the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and affiliated with the Respondent, University B. It was the claim of the Petitioner that the Respondent, University B, had not taken any decision to promote students due to the COVID-19 pandemic nor had it taken a decision to hold examinations and sought that the Court direct the Respondent to take a decision.
The Court held that the Respondent shall take steps to decide whether to promote the Petitioner’s students directly or to conduct an examination. If the Respondent decides to promote the Petitioner’s students directly, then approval from the Pharmacy Council of India must be obtained. If the Respondent takes the decision to conduct an examination, it must conduct the examination according to the terms of the schedule set by the Pharmacy Council of India under Regulations of 2014.
Facts of the case
The Petitioner, University A, in this case has submitted that the Respondent, University B, to which it is affiliated with has not decided whether to promote students due to pandemic of COVID-19 or to hold examinations. The Petitioner has thus approached this Court seeking orders for the Respondent to hold examinations for the Petitioner’s students for the academic session 2019-23 (first year) and 2020-24 (first year) or in the alternative to direct the respondent-University to take a decision to promote the students of the aforesaid sessions, on account of pandemic of Covid-19. The petition was placed before the High Court.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Private individual
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
On the matter of the Respondent not taking a decision, the Court said that the delay in conducting the examination has a direct as well as cascading effect on the future career of the students. The inaction on the part of the Respondent would cause discrimination with the students as other Universities in India had conducted examinations or promoted the students, directly during COVID-19 pandemic, merely on account of the lackadaisical approach of the Respondent. The students of the institution would be deprived for applying for future examinations or for service as their entire course has been delayed.
Regarding the provision that governs the examination and other academic processes, the Court held that the Pharmacy Act exclusively covers all areas inclusive of approval course, laying down course content, eligibility conditions for students as well as teachers, evaluation standards of examination, grant of registration, entry of higher qualification in the same discipline, taking action for infamous conduct, etc. To carry out the objective and purpose for enacting the Pharmacy Act, the legislature has established under the statute the autonomous statutory authority i.e., the Pharmacy Council of India. Thus, it can be said that in the field of pharmacy, the Pharmacy Act is a special law, and it has jurisdiction and power over deciding the examination processes of the Pharma Universities.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The writ petition was allowed.
The Court ordered the Respondent to take steps to decide whether to promote the Petitioner directly or to conduct an examination. If it takes a decision to promote the Petitioner’s students directly, approval from the Pharmacy Council of India must be obtained. If the Respondent decides to conduct an examination, it is ordered that the examination shall be conducted in terms of the schedule et by the Pharmacy Council of India under the Regulations of 2014.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
- Equality
- Due process
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court recognized the equality principle by stating that the delay in conducting examinations has a direct as well as cascading effect on the future career of the students, and it would deny the students the opportunities available to the students at other universities.
The Court followed the due process principle in holding that the decision regarding the examinations must be taken as per the regulations under the Pharmacy Act of 1948.
Other notes
On "type of measure challenged": State Government Measure.
