JUDGMENT 1. :- The respondent No.7 Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer had conducted a combined competitive examination for the admission to D.Pharma Course in the year 1997. The petitioners about 40/50 students were successful. The respondent No.7 allocates seats to various institutions. The petitioners were allocated the admission to Bajrang College of Pharmacy Shiksha Samiti, respondent No.6 on deposit of required fee and other charges. 2. There are several colleges/institutions in the State of Rajasthan imparting courses and instructions for Diploma and degree in Pharmacy. Such diplomas and degrees are awarded to students who appear in the examination in,this regard conducted by the State of Rajasthan through the University. The students who are allowed to appear in the examination by the University are those students who are admitted to the colleges affiliated to the Universities. The D.Pharma is a two years course and examination is held at the end of academic year. As per the scheme, the sanctioned strength is equally divided into free seats and payment seats which seats are filled-up on the basis of merit as per the competitive entrance examination called the Pre-Pharmacy Test (for short Pre.P.T.). It is stated that the admissions in the institution, respondent No.6, were made in the year 1994-95 and 1996-97 on the basis of combined test. It is also one of the requirement that not~only the institution is to obtain affiliation from the University of Rajasthan, but for imparting instructions in Pharmacy they are required to obtain statutory approval and recognition from All India Council for Technical Education (here-in-after called as AJCTE), which is a statutory body and plays an active role in planning, formulation and maintenance of standards, accreditation, monitoring and evaluation, maintaining parity of certificates and awards and ensuring the coordinated and integrated development of technical and management education. 3. Section 3 of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (here-in-after called as the Act of 1987) provides for establishment of the All India Council for Technical Education by the Central Government which is a public body corporate. It is one of the functions of the Council to grant approval for establishment and administration of professional colleges such like the respondent No.6. The functions of such Council have been enumerated in the writ petition. It is one of the functions of the Council to grant approval for establishment and administration of professional colleges such like the respondent No.6. The functions of such Council have been enumerated in the writ petition. For the purpose of regulation of profession and practice of Pharmacy, the Legislative has also enacted Pharmacy Act and regulations are to be made prescribing the minimum standards of education required for qualification as Pharmacist. 4. The grievance of the petitioner students is that the respondent No.6 Bajrang College which purports to be a society is a facade deployed by a coterie of persons headed by the Chairman of the respondent society and his family members. These persons wield enormous political influence and are indulging in a systematical exploitation of students and their parents in the garb of running an educational institution. The petitioners submit that the Pharmacy Council has not granted the requisite statutory approval for D.Pharma course so conducted by Bajrang College as the Registrar of the Council under the Pharmacy Act has so informed them on the application made by them vide Annexure-4. Annexure-5 is a list of the institutions which had been recognised by the Pharmacy Council. The name of the respondent No.6 does not find in the list of the recognised institutions by the Pharmacy Council. 5. The petitioners also submit that even the Rajasthan University had not granted them the permanent affiliation and even the provisional affiliation granted earlier had not been approved for the academic session 1997-98. 6. It is further the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent No.6 had been able some how to obtain the NOC from the Government of Rajasthan and only on the basis of that NOC the M.D.S. University, Ajmer had allocated seats for admission to the respondent No.6 without making enquiry about the approval from the University of Rajasthan or by the Pharmacy Council. 7. It is also the submission of the petitioners that D.Pharma course is being conducted in a building which has merely two class rooms and Laboratory which is devoid of requisite Chemicals and equipments. There are no books available in the Library even though the respondent No.6 is collecting huge amount from the students as Library fee. It is further submitted that the study classes had never been held, nor there is any qualified teacher possessing requisite qualification of M.Pharma. There are no books available in the Library even though the respondent No.6 is collecting huge amount from the students as Library fee. It is further submitted that the study classes had never been held, nor there is any qualified teacher possessing requisite qualification of M.Pharma. Principal is only BPharma qualified so are the only three teachers. There is no hostel in the college nor there is proper provision for kitchen or toilet. The petitioners want to submit that as a matter of fact the respondent No.6 is only a commercial shop indulging in various gimmicks and extortion's for the purpose of extracting money from the hapless students. It is submitted that the money was being collected in the name of Bhama Shah Yojna from each student to the extent of Rs. 1100/-. Certain receipts had been attached as Annexure-11. Many representations were made by the petitioners to the authorities who found themselves duped, stranded and abandoned by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 7. It is submitted that neither of the official respondents are performing their statutory duties and the institution is playing with the career and life of the students. It is alleged that the petitioners have become victims on behalf of the institution. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite the prevailing circumstances in the aforesaid institution, none had bothered to look into the grievance of the students. A prayer has been made for issuing appropriate direction to the fact that the affiliation, recognition and approval for commencing the course in technical education can be granted or made operative only after the management of the institution has created the requisite infrastructure and has complied with the statutory norms, conditions and requirements and further to direct the concerned respondent to regularly conduct periodical inspections of those institutions. A further direction is being sought that the respondent No.5 be directed to take over the management and to appoint the administrative officer as controller. 8. It seems that some struggle was going on between the students and the management and the college had to issue a notice in the press asking the students to attend the classes. 9. Reply has been filed by the University of Rajasthan. 8. It seems that some struggle was going on between the students and the management and the college had to issue a notice in the press asking the students to attend the classes. 9. Reply has been filed by the University of Rajasthan. It is admitted that the petitioners were admitted in the year 1997-98 and onwards, but the University had not granted recognition to the respondent No.6 Bajrang College of Pharmacy Shiksha Samiti, for the reason that the respondent No.6 was not able to produce the 'No Objection Certificate' from the Government. It is submitted that 'No Objection Certificate' is issued by the Government after making proper enquiries and when the State Government stands satisfied after investigation. 10. Reply has been filed by the Institution respondent No.6. It is admitted that the students were admitted after the competitive test. It is stated that Bajrang College has been approved as an examining authority by the Pharmacy Council of India, New Delhi. It is stated that AICTE does not grant the permanent recognition, but it is from year to year and provisional recognition has been granted by Annexures R/1 to Annexure R/8. It is further submitted that the first session in the college had started from 1994-95. It is mentioned in the written statement that the University had conducted examination of D.Pharma of Ist year students of the year 1997, but had not accorded permanent approval to any of the college of Pharmacy in Rajasthan and all the colleges are functioning on provisional recognition. The allegations as stated are denied. 11. The State has also filed reply. The plea of the State is that for the reason that AICTE had given approval and, therefore, the State had issued 'No Objection Certificate'. It goes without saying that the State itself has not inspected the institution at any time before giving the 'No Objection Certificate' and was basing its defence only on 'No Objection Certificate' as given by AICTE. 12. By way of amendment in the memo of parties (sic petition ?), 10 more students are said to have joined as petitioners, i.e. out of total 60 students admitted in D.Pharma, 50 students have filed the present writ petition mentioning the deficiencies/defects of teaching being conducted by the institution. 13. 12. By way of amendment in the memo of parties (sic petition ?), 10 more students are said to have joined as petitioners, i.e. out of total 60 students admitted in D.Pharma, 50 students have filed the present writ petition mentioning the deficiencies/defects of teaching being conducted by the institution. 13. The institution in its reply even though had denied the allegations and has attached the provisional affiliation of the Government from time to time. Annexure-R/1 is dated 2.1.1995 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Board of Technical Education for the approval of the first session when the institution had started functioning in the session 1994-95. This was a provisional affiliation but subject to following terms and conditions.The conditions as mentioned were as under:- 1. Qualified teaching staff be appointed. 2. Hostel facilities be provided for residence of students coming from outside. 3. Adequate library Journal, reference books and other text books be provided. 4. Laboratories to be equipped and furnished as per AICTE norms.' 14. Similarly, the Board of Technical Education had granted the affiliation for the year 1995-96. 15. University of Rajasthan vide Annexure R/3 dated 10.9.1997 had granted the affiliation subject to fulfilment of the conditions as under: 1. Two more teachers be appointed. 2. Separate Library for Pharmacy Department be started immediately and more books especially reference books be also purchased in near future. 3. Facilities for games be provided. 4. Endowment fund be created as per University rules. 5. Re-Inspection after 4-6 months will be arranged to confirm the fulfilment of the above conditions.' 16. Similarly AICTE had granted the initial approval provisionally on subject to fulfilment of specific and general conditions vide Annexure-4 as under: 'The infrastructural and other facilities including faculty, labs, equipments, library, etc. should be provided as per AICTE norms. The teaching faculty strength should be brought at par by recruiting additional staff as per AICTE norms. The library holdings should be brought at par by way of purchase of additional text books, reference books, etc. as per AICTE norms. AICTE scales of pay should be granted to the teaching faculty. The institute should get affiliation to the State Board of Technical Education before actual admissions are made for academic year 1994-95.' 17. Annexure-R/6 has been attached by the respondent No.6 issued by AICTE on 9.8.1996 in regard to approval for 1996-97. as per AICTE norms. AICTE scales of pay should be granted to the teaching faculty. The institute should get affiliation to the State Board of Technical Education before actual admissions are made for academic year 1994-95.' 17. Annexure-R/6 has been attached by the respondent No.6 issued by AICTE on 9.8.1996 in regard to approval for 1996-97. When once again the approval had been granted subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the schedule attached with the letter, the conditions are as under: 1. The teaching faculty strength should be augmented by appointing persons having qualifications and experience as prescribed in AICTE norms. 2. The library faculty should be augmented by purchasing additional text books, reference books etc. and adequate furniture as per AICTE norms. 3. Library should be made independent and should not be shared. 4. The general upkeep of the campus should be improved to provide congenial atmosphere. 5. Medicinal plant garden be developed immediately. 6. Laboratories should be strengthened by procuring additional equipments, instruments etc. and other facilities, so as to conform to AICTE/PCI norms. 7. The management should establish an endowment fund as per AICTE norms.' 18. Similar are the conditions for approval in the year 1997-98. 19. In the written statement filed by the respondent No.5, the respondent No.5 has attached letter Annexure R/512 in regard to approval for the year 1994-95 wherein it is mentioned that the expert committee had expressed its satisfaction in terms of the availability of infrastructure and instructional facilities in the institution and it was decided that the approval for the year 1995-96 shall be made with specific conditions that the admission made for the said year would be approved only after provision of additional structure facilities etc. The relevant paras in Annexure R/5/2 are reproduced as under: 'I am to state that the Expert Committee of the AICTE had visited your institution to verify the compliance of the conditions indicated in the AICTE approval letter for 1994-95. The Expert Committee has expressed dissatisfaction in terms of availability of infrastructure and instructional facilities in your institution. The relevant paras in Annexure R/5/2 are reproduced as under: 'I am to state that the Expert Committee of the AICTE had visited your institution to verify the compliance of the conditions indicated in the AICTE approval letter for 1994-95. The Expert Committee has expressed dissatisfaction in terms of availability of infrastructure and instructional facilities in your institution. The Regional Committee considered this report and has recommended that your institution may be approved by the Council for 1995-96 with a specific condition that 'admission infrastructure facilities and verification of compliance by the AICTE committee.' 'It may please be noted that the admissions for the academic year 1995-96 shall be permitted only after your institution creates at least 70% of infrastructure facilities as per AICTE norms to conduct the courses from 1995-96. Further, the institute will be required to provide full facilities by December, 1995 as per AICTE norms.' 20. Vide Annexure R/5/9 dated 6.10.1998 Pharmacy Council of India had accorded the admission retrospectively from 1994-95 to 1999-2000. Even though All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi was made a party as respondent No.2 and served, but it had not chosen to file any written statement. Vide Annexure R/6/10, the affiliation was not extended by the University of Rajasthan to Bajrang College for the year 1997-98 as is clear from the letter dated 7.9.1998. 21. From the above-said facts one aspect is invariably clear that AICTE had granted the provisional approval on the conditions as mentioned in Annexure R-1 in the year 1994 that (1) the college should have the qualified teaching staff, (2) Hostel facilities be provided; (3) adequate library Journal be provided and (4) the Laboratory be equipped and furnished as per the standard norms. Similar were the conditions laid down for the provisional approval for the next year 1995-96. As per Annexure R-6 AICTE once again granted the provisional approval on the conditions that the institution should augment the appointments of the persons having qualifications as per norms and again defects were pointed out about the library-, laboratory, campus, medicinal plants etc. 22. It goes without staying that right from 1994-95 onwards the institution was not fulfilling the conditions which were required to be fulfilled by the AICTE and was not equipped properly either with qualified staff, Laboratory, library or medicinal plants etc. 22. It goes without staying that right from 1994-95 onwards the institution was not fulfilling the conditions which were required to be fulfilled by the AICTE and was not equipped properly either with qualified staff, Laboratory, library or medicinal plants etc. It is not mentioned in the report as to what actually the inspection party had found which was available in the college. Nothing has been mentioned about the building, the class rooms, the facilities available to the students which are paramount in running the classes. It was the duty of AICTE to mention in the report of whatever facilities were available in detail and whether they conform the standards or not. Of course, whatever was lacking bias been mentioned in the general and vague manner and if the defects which were required to be removed, in that situation it can be safely said that the college was not equipped at all with the infrastructure which was mandatory provision for any educational institution specially technical institution to run. The AICTE had failed to appear in the court despite the notices and to produce any record before this court or to file a written statement. In my opinion, the Council had failed in performing statutory duty to have a complete supervision before granting the approval provisionally or permanently. It can be no excuse for any of the party to say that if it is a provisional approval, any of the requirement are not to be complied with. So far the teaching and providing of infrastructure is concerned, there can not be different yard sticks of the provisional or permanent approval as in both the situations the institution is duty bound to provide the educational facilities equipments, Laboratory, Library, Class rooms, teaching staff who are fully qualified and should be prepared for any inspection at any time. 23. The Government had also failed in its duty to have proper supervision on the college before issuing a 'No Objection Certificate' only on the basis of approval granted by AICTE as has been made out in the written statement. Issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' is not a mere formality, rather it is the double check. 23. The Government had also failed in its duty to have proper supervision on the college before issuing a 'No Objection Certificate' only on the basis of approval granted by AICTE as has been made out in the written statement. Issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' is not a mere formality, rather it is the double check. In case AICTE fails in its statutory duty, it is incumbent on the Government to inform the AICTE on the inspection made before issuing 'No Objection Certificate' to point out the facts whether the dis-qualifications or the defects pointed out at the time of granting the provisional approval had been removed or not. The Government in the Technical department has failed to do its statutory duty. The University which grants the affiliation has also a team of inspectors, falls in the same line of default. Because of lapse on the part of AICTE, the other functionaries i.e. the Government and the University had also taken the approval/affiliation matter in a most cursory manner. The students have been trying to attract the attention of the authorities to the miseries being felt by them from the very day they got admissions. Representations were made. It is surprising that about 50 students out of 60 students have approached this court with the prayers made in the writ petition. It is not only their personal interest, but also the interest of the educational system which they are bringing to the notice of this court by way of filing the present writ petition and spending huge amount with the purpose to say that not only the wrong done to the students be remedied, but in future also such like institutions should not be allowed to play with the lives of the students. Even at the time of arguments, a proposal was mooted out for ordering on the spot inspection by the experts to be nominated by the parties in the present writ petition. The proposal was not agreed to by the respondents. The reasons are obvious. 24. Even at the time of arguments, a proposal was mooted out for ordering on the spot inspection by the experts to be nominated by the parties in the present writ petition. The proposal was not agreed to by the respondents. The reasons are obvious. 24. In such a situation as has been narrated above, I hold that whatever provisional approval has been given to the institution for whatever studies be kept in abeyance and an expert body be constituted having the expert representation of the University of Rajasthan, AICTE, Pharmacy Council of India, the representative of Government of India in Technical Education Department or its nominee if possible a representative of the State of Rajasthan in Technical Education Department and also some representative of the students to form a committee and to make a proper inspection not only of this institution but if possible all the institutions imparting technical educations in the State of Rajasthan so that the grievance of the students which have been brought to the notice of the court time and again by filing separate writ petitions are removed once for all. Such committee shall be constituted with the assistance of the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan within a period of a month of receipt of a certified copy of this order and such committee shall assemble for inspection of the institution and submit its report preferably within one month thereafter in any case before or near about the commencement of the next session of the said course in the said institution. 25. For the reason that the majority of the students have brought their sufferings to the court and had suffered almost a session of their studies, it shall be appropriate in the present case that the students in the institution shall be spread over to the other institutions and shall be allowed to appear in the examination as per law. 26. The Registrar of this court will see that the compliance of this court is made in the interest of the students and the institution and the public at large and the committee is constituted in time and report submitted. A copy of the report shall also be submitted to the Registrar of the High Court to be placed on record.With the above-said observations, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. A copy of the report shall also be submitted to the Registrar of the High Court to be placed on record.With the above-said observations, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be borne by the respondent No.2 and 6 equally.Petition Allowed with costs. *******