KRUPANIDHI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.26413 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.26517 of 2017; and Writ Petition No.26889 of 2017 are the private unaided professional educational institutions imparting education in the field of Pharmacy including Bachelor of Pharmacy and Doctorate of Pharmacy courses. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.25592 of 2017 is the Association of Pharmacy college in Karnataka.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.26413 of 2017 and Writ petition No.26517 of 2017, submits that the petitioner-institutions are premier institutions in imparting professional education courses in the field of Pharmacy. The petitioner-institutions were established with the permission of State Government/Pharmacy Council of India/AICTE respectively. The petitioners are a privately run colleges and does not receive any aid from the State. It is also submitted that the institutions had to invest huge sums in the establishment and running of the institutions. The petitioner- institutions is affiliated to the third respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences. As regards the seat matrix, the Government vide order dated 19th April 2007 fixed the ratio of 50:50, i.e. out of total intake of students 50% shall be the Management quota and another 50% was from the Government quota for M.Pharma; in the ratio of 75:25 for M.Sc. Nursing and M.P.T.; and in the ratio of 80:20 for B.Pharma, B.Sc. Nursing and B.P.T. The learned counsel submitted that vide order dated 02nd June 2017, the seat matrix for all the courses has been fixed in the ratio at 50:50. This, the learned counsel submits, is illegal and arbitrary. This the learned counsel submits is nothing but a unilateral condition imposed on the petitioner-institutions while considering grant of permission in exercise of its powers under Section 45(5) of the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994. The learned counsel further submitted that granting permission to commence B.Pharma, Pharma.D course, the institutions had to maintain highest level of infrastructure and facilities. It is also submitted that to establish a Pharmacy Educational Institution, the institutions should have a 300 bed hospital or should have a fulltime affiliation to a 300 bed hospital. Hence, the cost of imparting education in B.Pharma, D.Pharma, courses is considerably higher than other pharmacy courses. It is further submitted that the petitioner-institutions are imparting quality education and has determined a fee structure to the different courses of pharmacy. It is also submitted that the fees structure fixed by the Government under the state quota is less than the fee structure of the petitioner- Institutions which do not cover the expense of conducting the course. The fee prescribed by the State is wholly inadequate to the course and does not cover the expense of conducting the course. The petitioner-institutions had to incur heavy expenses to set up infrastructure as per the requirement under the regulations of the Pharmacy Council of India; as also in the light of the infrastructure already provided and considering the salaries and other development charges to be incurred from time to time, the petitioner-institutions have fixed Rs.2,00,000/- per student per year to prosecute Pharm-D. Whereas the fee structure fixed by the Government for the purported government seats is Rs.20,930/- for the Bachelor degree and Rs.86,930/- for the Masters which is wholly arbitrary, illegal and completely inadequate to run the course. To buttress his submissions, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of T.M.A. PAI FOUNDATION v. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPORTED IN (2002)8 SCC 481; and the judgment in the case of P.A. INAMDHAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2005)6 SCC 537.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that State has not opened any institute offering Pharm.D and Pharm.D (PB) course but has sought to stiffen off seats from the petitioner-institutions. The second respondent has conducted CET examinations for the students intending to prosecute pharmacy courses for the year 2017-18 has modified the seat matrix stiffening off 50% by notifying the ratio of 50:50 for Management and Government quota. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing the impugned order Annexure-D dated 02nd June 2017; for quashing the Notification Annexure-D1 dated 15th June 2017; Order Annexure-E dated 02nd February 2010; and order Annexure-E1 dated 22nd February 2013 issued by the respondents. It is also prayed to declare that the state government has no power or authority to notify any quota for itself or to fix fee structure. Similar direction is sought by the petitioner in the other petition.