1/3 (1)- S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6771/2005 (Pardhuman Singh Rathore Vs. Association of Indian Universities & ors.) (2)- S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6797/2005 (S. Gunwanti Gehlot Vs. J.N.V.U., Jodhpur & ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 25.10.2007. HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. P.S.Bhati, for the petitioners. Mr. VK Mathur, for respondent No.2. Mr. Sandeep Shah) Mr. DC Sharma) Mr. H.Shrimalee for Mr Hemant Shrimalee, for respondent No.1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both these petitions raise identical issue of law and facts, therefore, both are decided by this common order. For convenience, facts are taken into consideration from SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6771/2005. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present matter is that in the absence of proper recognition of respondent No.4 Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth (Deemed University), Udaipur by the Pharmacy Council of India, the examinations passed by the petitioner was not considered equivalent to Pre-University Course (PUC) and therefore, he was 2/3 not admitted to D-Pharma course by the respondents No. 3 and 5 Educational Colleges. 4. It appears that during the pendency of this writ petition, the matter regarding recognition of respondent No.4 was pending with the appropriate authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that the University Grants Commission has already granted proper recognition to the said deemed university -respondent No.4, therefore, the respondent No.1 – the Association of Indian Universities and the Pharmacy Council of India -respondent No.2 may be directed to consider the case of respondent No.4 (deemed University) for purpose of said recognition so that if the petitioner still intends to take admission on the basis of his qualification from the said deemed university, he may not be denied such admission merely on the ground of non recognition of the equivalence of PUC examinations for that purpose. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both these petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents No.1 and 2, the appropriate authorities to consider the case of recognition of respondent No.4-deemed university so that not only the petitioner but other similarly situated students may also 3/3 not be denied admissions in proper courses merely in the absence of such recognition. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that respondents No. 1 and 2 shall consider the case of respondent No.4 expeditiously but not later than a period of three months from today. 8. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of. (Dr VINEET KOTHARI)J. ITEM NO.8-9. gandhi/-