ORDER 1. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Pharmacy Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Council’), the respondent against the judgment and order dated 24th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 5014 of 2010. 2. The matter at issue is whether the qualification of Senior Secondary School Course (10+2) from the National Institute of Open Schooling acquired by the writ petitioner is valid for the purpose of admission to a course in Pharmacy for registration as ‘Pharmacist’. At the outset we may note that under the impugned order of the learned single Judge, the petitioner was admitted to the degree course in Pharmacy. However, after attending a part of the course the petitioner has left the course. The Appeal has thus become infructuous. However, in view of the question of law that arises in the matter, learned advocate Mr. S.D. Sanjay appearing for the Council has requested that the matter be decided on merits. 3. After completing a secondary school course from the National Institute of Open Schooling, the petitioner took the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 2009 as a Scheduled Caste candidate. In course of counselling the petitioner opted for admission to a degree course in Pharmacy in Government Pharmacy Institute, Gulzarbagh, Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’). His option was accepted. When the petitioner approached the Institute for admission to the Pharmacy course the Principal of the Institute refused admission on the ground that the secondary school certificate obtained by the petitioner from National Institute of Open Schooling, New Delhi was not recognized by the Council for the purpose of admission to a course in Pharmacy and for registration as ‘Pharmacist’. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in C.W.J.C. No. 5014 of 2010. The petitioner prayed for direction to the Institute to admit the petitioner to the degree course in Pharmacy pursuant to the recommendation made by the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board. 4. In answer to the notice, the petition was contested by the Institute. The Institute filed counter affidavit. According to the Institute, under the Regulations of the Council a certificate obtained by distant education was not recognized for admission to a course in Pharmacy. 4. In answer to the notice, the petition was contested by the Institute. The Institute filed counter affidavit. According to the Institute, under the Regulations of the Council a certificate obtained by distant education was not recognized for admission to a course in Pharmacy. For admission to a course in Pharmacy a student was required to have acquired such certificate by attending a regular school. In support of the claim the Institute produced the relevant Regulations. It may, however, be noted that the Council did not appear before the Court to contest the writ petition. 5. The learned single Judge was pleased to hold that the National Institute of Open Schooling, New Delhi was a Government institute. Certificate awarded by the Government institute cannot be ignored. The Council was obliged to recognize such certificate and to grant admission to a course in Pharmacy on the strength of such certificate. 6. Feeling aggrieved the Council has preferred this Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. S.D. Sanjay has appeared for the Council. He has submitted that although the Council did not appear before the learned single Judge to contest the writ petition, the relevant provisions and the Regulations were brought on record by the Institute. The learned single Judge ought to have considered the relevant provisions and the Regulations to reject the claim made by the writ petition. Mr. Sanjay has relied upon the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the Pharmacy Council of India Education Regulations, 1991. Mr. Sanjay has also relied upon the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Babita and others v. Pharmacy Council of India and others (C.W.P. No. 11427 of 2008 decided on 7th July 2008, coram : Justice Ashutosh Mohunta and Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia). He has submitted that the Regulations made by the Pharmacy Council of India apply to all Pharmacy colleges/institutes; for admission in such colleges and institutes and for the registration of the students passing a course in Pharmacy as the Pharmacist. The Regulations, therefore, are required to be interpreted and applied uniformly all over the country. He has submitted that Pharmacy being a technical subject dealing with the health of the people; it is necessary that strict standard of admission is maintained. With the said aim, the Council has not recognized a course of distant education for admission to a course in Pharmacy. He has submitted that Pharmacy being a technical subject dealing with the health of the people; it is necessary that strict standard of admission is maintained. With the said aim, the Council has not recognized a course of distant education for admission to a course in Pharmacy. He has submitted that for admission to a course in Pharmacy a student has to attend the regular school and must pass 10+2 or intermediate examination in science. 8. For regulation of the profession and practice of Pharmacy, the Parliament has enacted the Pharmacy Act, 1948. The said Act provides for constitution of the Pharmacy Council of India. It empowers the Pharmacy Council of India to make Regulations; to prescribe the minimum standard of education required for qualification as a Pharmacist. Such Regulations are also applicable to the States. In exercise of the said powers the Council has framed the Education Regulations, 1991. Regulation 5 thereof provides for minimum qualification for admission to Diploma in Pharmacy Part-I course. It provides that a candidate must have passed any of the examinations prescribed thereunder with Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Mathematics. The examinations prescribed are “(1) Intermediate examination in Science; (2) The first year of the three year degree course in Science; (3) 10+2 examination (academic stream) in science; (4) Pre-degree examination; and (5) Any other qualification approved by the Pharmacy Council of India as equivalent to any of the above examination. In exercise of the said power the Council has under its decision dated 7th and 8th April 2007 reflected in the communication dated 13th June 2007, issued specific direction that the Council has not approved Senior Secondary School Examination (10+2) by National Open School, New Delhi for admission to Pharmacy-D course for the purpose of registration as Pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act. 9. To us it appears that the Pharmacy Council of India being an expert body, the decision of the Council taken in exercise of statutory powers conferred upon it, has to be respected. If the Council in its wisdom has considered it necessary that for admission to a Pharmacy course a student is required to have passed the qualifying examination by attending a regular school, such decision cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. A qualification may be valid for certain purpose but the same qualification may not be valid for certain other purpose. A qualification may be valid for certain purpose but the same qualification may not be valid for certain other purpose. A certificate awarded by National Institute of Open Schooling may be valid for admission to certain higher educational courses or for employment, the same may not be recognized for admission to a specific course, a course in Pharmacy in the present case. We are of the opinion that the learned single Judge is not right in holding that a Government Pharmacy Institute cannot question the credibility of a certificate awarded by a National Institute run under the aegis of the Government of India. It is not the question of credibility of the course or the certificate awarded by the National Institute; it is the question of certain requirement for admission to a Pharmacy course and ultimate registration as Pharmacist. In any view of the matter, in absence of challenge to the Regulations or to the decision of the Pharmacy Council of India, such decision was binding to the petitioner. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The judgment and order dated 24th August 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5014 of 2010 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 5014 of 2010 is dismissed. 11. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. 12. The parties will bear their own cost.