Subsequent Year Approval Validates Prior Rejection Under Pharmacy Act | Academic Continuity Upheld : Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has established a significant precedent in educational institution approvals, holding that approval granted for a subsequent academic year validates the rejection of approval for a prior year. This judgment clarifies the legal position for institutions whose approvals were rejected by the Pharmacy Council of India but subsequently granted for later years, ensuring students' rights to attend examinations and upload details without delay.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Gulbarga College Pharmacy represented by its Principal, challenged the rejection of approval for the D.Pharmacy course for the academic year 2024-25 by the Pharmacy Council of India (respondent No.1). The impugned order (Annexure-J dated 07.11.2024, communicated on 09.12.2024) rejected the petitioner's approval application, disrupting the academic progression of admitted students.

Key Facts

• The petitioner college had been granted approval for D.Pharmacy courses up to the academic year 2023-24
• Approval for 2024-25 was rejected by the Pharmacy Council of India via order dated 07.11.2024
• The petitioner made representations to respondent No.2 on 30.06.2025 and 18.09.2025, which were not addressed
• The petitioner also corresponded with the Food Safety and Drug Administration Department on 04.10.2025 and 03.11.2025
• Approval was subsequently granted for the academic year 2025-26

Procedural History

• 07.11.2024: Pharmacy Council of India rejected approval for 2024-25 (Annexure-J)
• 09.12.2024: Rejection order communicated to the petitioner
• 2025: Multiple writ petitions filed by similarly situated institutions:
  • W.P. No. 7801/2025 (Bangalore City College of Pharmacy)
  • W.P. No. 200181/2025, W.P. No. 200281/2025, W.P. No. 200352/2025, W.P. No. 200468/2025 (other institutions)
  • W.P. No. 200818/2025 (Shetty Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences)
• 17.03.2025: Interim order passed in W.P. No. 7801/2025 permitting admission of students subject to outcome
• 15.12.2025: Coordinate Bench disposed of W.P. No. 7801/2025 quashing the impugned order
• 03.06.2026: Present writ petition (W.P. No. 200590/2025) disposed of by this Court

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

1. Quashing of the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure-J) rejecting approval for 2024-25
2. Direction to respondents to grant approval for 2024-25
3. Permission for students to attend the ensuing examination for 2025-26

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the approval granted for a subsequent academic year (2025-26) validates the rejection of approval for a prior year (2024-25), particularly when students were already admitted and examinations were imminent.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Relied on the precedent set in W.P. No. 7801/2025, where the Court quashed a similar rejection order upon subsequent year approval
• Argued that similarly situated institutions across the state had been granted the same relief
• Submitted that the Pharmacy Council of India had not challenged the orders passed in favour of other institutions
• Highlighted that students were permitted to write examinations under interim orders, and denying approval would prejudice their academic progression

For the Respondent (Pharmacy Council of India)

• Relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Central Council for Indian Medicine v. Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College and others (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 365)
• Contended that approval for a subsequent year does not automatically validate rejection for a prior year
• Argued that the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and its regulations must be strictly complied with, and subsequent approval does not cure prior non-compliance

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the principle of equity and consistency in educational institution approvals. Key observations included:

1. Precedent Application: The Court noted that in W.P. No. 7801/2025 and W.P. No. 200818/2025, coordinate Benches had quashed similar rejection orders upon subsequent year approval. The Pharmacy Council of India had not challenged these orders, implying acquiescence.

   "If that is so, I do not find any good reason as to why the petitioner Institutions also should not be extended the very same benefit which has been extended to similarly situated other institutions in other parts of the State."

2. Distinction from Supreme Court Precedent: The Court distinguished the relied-upon Supreme Court judgment (Central Council for Indian Medicine), noting that it pertained to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, whereas the present case involved the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The Court emphasized that the Pharmacy Council had not assailed the orders passed in favour of other institutions, warranting consistent treatment.

3. Equitable Consideration: The Court observed that students had already been permitted to write examinations under interim orders, and denying approval would cause irreparable prejudice. The approval for 2025-26 was deemed sufficient to validate the rejection for 2024-25, ensuring continuity in academic progression.

4. Portal Access and Examination Rights: The Court directed the respondents to open the website/portal for uploading student details and permit students to attend examinations, ensuring no delay in academic activities.

The Verdict

The petition was allowed with the following directions:

1. The impugned order dated 07.11.2024 (Annexure-J) rejecting approval for the academic year 2024-25 was quashed
2. The respondents were directed to open the website/portal and permit the petitioner and its students to upload student details
3. The students of the petitioner institution were permitted to attend the ensuing examination for the academic year 2025-26 (scheduled to commence from 07.04.2026) without delay

What This Means For Similar Cases

Subsequent Year Approval Validates Prior Rejection

• Institutions whose approvals were rejected for a prior academic year but granted for a subsequent year can now rely on this judgment to seek quashing of the rejection order
• The Court has established that subsequent approval cures prior rejection, particularly when students have already been admitted and examinations are imminent

Consistency in Educational Institution Approvals

• The Pharmacy Council of India or similar regulatory bodies cannot selectively enforce rejection orders when identical relief has been granted to other institutions
• Practitioners should argue for equitable treatment where coordinate Benches have passed similar orders without challenge

Practical Implications for Students and Institutions

• Institutions must ensure immediate compliance with portal access and examination permissions to avoid academic disruption
• Students admitted under interim orders are protected from prejudice caused by administrative delays or rejections
• Institutions should document all representations made to regulatory bodies, as these were considered by the Court in assessing equitable relief