LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/viit-pharmacy-college-and-another-vs-dr-a-p-j-abdul-kalam-technical-university-and-another-20210415/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Constitutional · Reportable judgment

Viit Pharmacy College and Another vs Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University and Another

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 April 2021
Case No.
Writ Petition (C) No.390 of 2021
Result
Allowed
Bench
R.F. Nariman, Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Hrishikesh Roy
Citation
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 274 : 2021 INSC 255
Supreme Court Reports [2021] 4 S.C.R. 274 : 2021 INSC 255
Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions: Pharmacy college – Respondent no.1-University invited applications for grant of affiliation for the year 2020-2021 –Petitioners were granted approval by the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) for conducting first year B.Pharma course for the academic year 2020-2021 – In the meantime, State Government came up with policy dated 15.05.2020 for restricting the number of colleges to only two per district – The said policy was challenged in bunch of petitions – High Court had set aside the policy only insofar as petitioners who had approached High Court – Since respondent no.1-University refused to grant affiliation to the petitioners and refused to permit their students to appear before the first year B.Pharma examination, the petitioners approached this Court seeking direction to respondent no.1-University to grant affiliation for B.Pharma course to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-2021 with further direction to organize special examinations for B.Pharma students for academic year 2020-2021 in view of notification dated 19.03.2021 – Held: Indisputably, in the instant case, the PCI had granted approval to the petitioners by order dated 10.04.2020, with intake capacity of 100 and 60 admissions/students respectively – Not only that, the petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the policy decision of the State Government dated 15.05.2020, were allowed by the High Court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2020 – Indisputably, the State Government also by notification dated 19.03.2021, had granted conditional affiliation after considering the recommendations made by the Affiliation Committee – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and particularly, since the averments made on affidavit by the petitioners, were not controverted by respondent No.1-University, petition is allowed – Respondent No.1-University is directed to grant affiliation to the KALAM TECHNIC AL UNIVERSITY

petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21 and also permit the students of the petitioner colleges to participate in the special examinations to be organized by respondent No.1-University for the academic year 2020-21 in view of the notification dated 19.03.2021.

Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshiwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and Others Etc. 2020 SCC OnLine SC 296 – relied on

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Order of the Court was passed by B. R. GAVAI, J. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent No.1-Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) to grant affiliation for B. Pharma course to the petitioner colleges for the academic year 2020-21 with further direction to respondent No.1-University to organize special examinations for B. Pharma students for academic year 2020-21 in view of the notification dated 19th March 2021. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the petition are as under:On 28th January 2020
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →