wgwk U ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petitionwmo. 3 IQQ [2009 SWGLE BENCH PETITIONERS :— 1. /Dharmendra Kumar Pankaj, son of Shri Bhanu Lal Pankaj, aged about 21 years, Resident of G.M. Office, S.E.C.L. Raigarh, Tahsil 85 District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). . Ku. Manju Mulwani D/ o Sri Ramchandra ' Mulwani aged about 21 years, Resident of wanti Vihar, Raipur, ahsil 85 District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). i, / 3. Columbia Institute of Pharmacy, Tekari, Near Vidhan Sabha, Raipur (Chhattgarh), run and managed by Jan Pragati Education Society, through it’s Secretary Haljeet Singh Hura o Late Shri Gulab Singh, age abo 45 years, R/ ur & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). s/ d ut o Dévendra Nagar, Raip, Tahsil RESPONDENT : 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Technical Education Mantralya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Direcorate of Technical Education, through its Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Chhattisgarh State Byran Bazar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) / 3. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, through its Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, North Park Avenue, Sector—8, Bhilai, District “y, \ 2 h , A T is VERSUS S f t ’ (h ) Durg (Chhattisgarh) 4. A11 India Council for Technical Education, through it’s Regional Offlcer; All India Council for Technical Education, Bhopal, Central Regional Office, Taigor Hostel, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQE §TITUTION QF INDIA (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, d. Present? Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. \ Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Shri Anand Dadariya, Advocate for the respondent No.4. r ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 23rd day of June, 2010) By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent University to admit the petitionersin B. .Pharmacy 2nd year (3rd Semester) course for the academic session 2009-10 and further issue admit cards for participating in the examination. The indisputable facts, in nutsheH, for disposal ofthe case, are that the petitioners along with other six persons made an application under the provisions of Regulation 7 of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) admission of students in Degree Engineering Programs through lateral entry Regulations 2007 (for short ”the Regu/ations 20070 for admission to 3rd semester in B. Pharmacy course. The Principal, Columbia Institute of Pharmacy, Tekari, Raipur, on 12/11/2009 (Annexure P/5) wrote a y’gxletter to the Additional Director, Directorate of Technical Education HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.7126 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Dharmendra Kumar Pankaj & others Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others ... ... .. for granting approval to admit the petitioners along with other six ’ persons in B. Pharma 3rd Semester under the Regulations 2007. The Director, Technical Education, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, by communication dated 20/11/2009 (Annexure P/6) approved admission of the petitioners in B. Pharmacy 3rd Semester (lateral entry). The petitioners deposited the requisite fee also. However, the respondent University vide communication dated 20/11/2009 (Annexure P/9) while approving six candidates, failed to enroll the petitioners for lateral entry B. Pharma 3rd Semester 2009-10. I Thus, this petition. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Regulations 2007 issued under the notification dated 12/01/2007 (Annexure P/2) is applicable to Pharmacy Colleges also under the provisions of Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 2007. Shri Agrawal further submits that 2 seats are available at 15‘ year level also. ‘RegUlation 7 deals with lateral entry to 2nd year programme i.e. 3rd Semester in B. Pharmacy. lt is provided that there would be a lateral entry to 2nd year degree programme up to a maximum of 10% of sanctioned intake. ln addition, the candidates would be eligible for admission in the 2nd year against the vacant seats at 1st year level. ln the case on hand, the respondent University ignored the statutory provisions as enshrined under‘Regulation 7 of the Regulations 2007 and rejected enrollment of the petitioners on he V t 9§ ground that 10% means 6 admissions only, as the total seats available in 3rd Semester are 6O can be made. Per contra, Shri Y.S. Thakur, teamed counsei appearing for the respondent University submits that the respondent University has declined admission in view of the fact that only 6 seats out of 60 seats are permissible to be admitted in 3rd Semester B. Pharmacy Course. Shri Shashank Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that as per the Regulations 2007 the diploma holders shall be eligible for admission to 2“d year degree programme up to a 'l maximum of 10% of sanctioned intake, which will be over and above the sanctioned intake. ln addition, the candidates shall be eligible for admission in the 2““ year against the vacant seats at 15‘ year level. Extra admissions could be made in place of seats falling vacant due to transfer of Z students during 1S‘ year itselfin addition to 10% of sanctioned intake. Shri Dadariya, learned counsel appearing for the-respondent No.4 .submits that the institutions are also eligible to admit students against the vacant seats of 15‘ year level by giving admission to diploma and B.Sc. degree holders in 2nd year degree programmes. l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended'thereto. The respondent University remains silent in respect of remaining [Ivpart of the provisions of Regulation 7 of the Regulations 2007, which provides that in addition the candidates shall be eligible for admission in the 2nd year Le. 3rd Semester in case B.Pharmacy course, against the vacant seats at 1S’ year level. 11. The contention of the petitioners is that 2 seats are avaiiabie at 13‘ year level is not controverted by the respondents. Thus, it is not disputed. The contention of learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4/AICTE is also that 10% of total seats are intake ' for 3m Semester. However, additional admission can be made in the 2w year (3rd Semester) at the 13‘ year level on availability of vacant seats. 12. There are 2 seats available at the 13‘ year level, the Direetor, Technical Education has also approved in View of the provision of Regulation 7 of the Regulations 2007, but the respondent University has ignored the provisions of law completely and has . denied the admission to the petitioners. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the petitioners are entitled to be admitted to 3rd Semester in B. Pharmacy course on the basis of diploma in Pharmacy in the academic session 2009—10 with all consequential benefits. 14. There shall be no order asto costs. batlsh K Agnthstr r uge fixsx Sd/- Ju