JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C.J. 1. In these two cases, contention of the Petitioners is that the amendment notified by the Pharmacy Council of India to the Education Regulations of 1991 by way of Education (Amendment) Regulations, 1996 by publishing the same in the Gazette of India as per notification found in Anneaure P/l on 2-3-1996 would apply to the examinations held in June, 1996 in which the Petitioners appeared for the 1st year Pharmacy Examination conducted by the 1st Respondent, namely, H.P. Board of Technical Education, Dharamshala. If the said contention is accepted the effect would be that the Petitioners would be eligible for awarding of pass in the examination if they secured 40% marks and above. Hence, Petitioners contend that the 1st Respondent is in error in applying the minimum percentage of marks at 50% as per Regulation 13 of the Education (Regulations) of 1991 as they stood before the amendment. 2. The contention of the 1st Respondent is that the Regulations prescribed by Pharmacy Council of India will not automatically apply to the courses conducted by the 1st Respondent as it is an Autonomous Body unless and until such regulations adopted by the 1st Respondent and notified accordingly. It is pointed out that the examination was over in June 1995 and it was only on 10th of July, 1996 the Board had in its meeting approved the amendment passed by the Pharmacy Council of India and decided to implements the same. That was notified by the Board on 27-8-1996. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the regulations framed by the Pharmacy Council of India would automatically apply to the courses conducted by the 1st Respondent. In support of this contention he refers to Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 A perusal of the said sections shows clearly that the contention is unsustainable. Section 10(1) says that the Central Council may, subject to the approval of the Central Government, make regulations, to be called the Education Regulations, prescribing the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a pharmacist. That itself shows that the regulations framed by the Central Council would insist upon a certain standard and it is not necessary for the State Bodies or other Bodies to accept the said minimum standard and they can prescribe a standard higher than that prescribed by the said regulations. 4. That itself shows that the regulations framed by the Central Council would insist upon a certain standard and it is not necessary for the State Bodies or other Bodies to accept the said minimum standard and they can prescribe a standard higher than that prescribed by the said regulations. 4. Section 11 would read that at any time after the constitution of the State Council under Chapter III and after consultation with the State Council, the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare that the Education Regulations shall take effect in the State. Admittedly, no such notification has been issued by the State Government in this case though a State Council has been constituted on 21-11-1995 under Notification No. HPW-BA-I-3-5/81-III 5. Section 12 provides that any authority in a State which conducts a course of study for pharmacists may apply to the Central Council for approval of the course, and the Central Council, if satisfied, after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said course of study is in conformity with Education Regulations, shall declare the said course of study to be an approved course of study for the purpose of admission to an approved examination for pharmacists It is argued by the learned Counsel that the Central Council is a superior body than the State authority and therefore, regulations framed by the Central Council would automatically bind the State authority and apply to the course conducted by the said authority. We are unable to accept the said contention. The meaning of Section 12 is very clear that any authority in a State which conducts a course of study in pharmacy may apply to the Central Council for approval of the course and the Central Council, if satisfied, after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said course is in conformity with the Education Regulations, shall declare the said course to be an approved course for the purpose of admission to an approved examination for pharmacist under the Act. So the contention of the Petitioners is rejected. 6. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Board has. in its meeting held on 10-7-1996, accepted the amendment and adopted the same. So the contention of the Petitioners is rejected. 6. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Board has. in its meeting held on 10-7-1996, accepted the amendment and adopted the same. It is contended by him, that itself is sufficient to make the new regulations applicable to the examinations held in June 1996, as the results were declared only later in August 1996. There is no merit in this contention. Once the examinations are held under the old regulations, it is not open to the 1st Respondent to change the same with regard to the said examinations before the results are announced. Hence, the contention of the Petitioners is unsustainable and is rejected. 7. In view of the above observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, CMP in the petitions are also dismissed.