ORDER : By way of instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “i) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Clause-7 as contained in Himachal Pradesh Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training Department, Principal (B.Pharmacy) (Class-I Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008 (Annexure P-6) being illegal, discriminatory and ultra vires to the provisions of the Constitution of India, besides being in conflict with the Pharmacy Council of India, besides being in conflict with the Pharmacy Council of India and All India Council of Technical Education norms. ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to substitute essential experience as contained in Clause 7 of the Himachal Pradesh Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training Department, Principal (B.Pharmacy) (Class-I Gazetted) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008 (Annexure P-6) with the experience as prescribed in Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Pharmacy Institutions Regulations, 2014 (Annexure P-7) i.e. 15 Years Experience in teaching out of which 5 years must be as Professor/HOD in a PCI approved/recognized Pharmacy College or with the experience as prescribed in Gazette of India Notification dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-8) i.e. minimum 15 years of experience in teaching/research/industry, out of which atleast 3 years shall be at the post equivalent to that of professor. 2. Petitioners herein, who are working as Professor and Associate Professor in Government Pharmacy College Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra and Rohru, District Shimla respectively are aggrieved of the minimum educational qualification prescribed under Rule-7 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Principal (B.Pharmacy) (Class I) (Gazetted) in Pharmacy College in the Department of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘Rules’). Rule-7, whereof provides as under: “7. Minimum Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION: (i) QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE FOR CANDIDATES FROM REACHING, Ph.D degree (with first Class Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of specialization in Pharmacy and with 10 years experience of which at least 05 years experience at senior level comparable to that of an Professor would also be eligible. (ii) DESIRABLE QUALIFICATION: (i) Administrative experience in a responsible position. ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION: (i) QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE FOR CANDIDATES FROM REACHING, Ph.D degree (with first Class Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of specialization in Pharmacy and with 10 years experience of which at least 05 years experience at senior level comparable to that of an Professor would also be eligible. (ii) DESIRABLE QUALIFICATION: (i) Administrative experience in a responsible position. (ii) Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Pradesh.” 3. As per Rule 10 of the Rules, post of Principal, in the College of Pharmacy is to be filled up 100% by way of promotion failing which by direct recruitment or on contract basis. Clause 10 of the Rules provides as under: “10. Method of recruitment, whether by direct recruitment or by promotion, deputation, transfer and the percentage of vacancies to be filled in by various methods: 100% promotion failing which by direct recruitment or on contract basis.” 4. Precisely the grouse of the petitioners is that the minimum educational qualification under Rule 7 of the Rules, is not in consonance with the Regulations issued by the Pharmacy Council of India vide Notification dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure P-7), whereby minimum educational qualification for appointment to the post of Director, Principal/head of institution has been prescribed as follows: Director/Principal/Head of Institution First Class B.Pharm with Master’s degree in Pharmacy (M. Pharm) in appropriate branch of specialization in Pharmacy or Pharm.D (Qualifications must be PCI recognized) With Ph.D degree in any of the Pharmacy subjects (Ph.d. Qualifications must be PCI recognized) Essential 15 years experience in teaching or research out of which 5 years must be as Professor/HoD in a PCI approved recognized pharmacy college. Desirable Administrative experience in a responsible position. 5. Since, Department of Pharmacy falls under Department of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, it is also governed by the Regulations notified by the All India Council for Teacher Education (AICTE), which vide Notification dated 1.3.1998 (annexure P-8) has prescribed following qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Director/Principal: “5.2.(f) Qualifications for Direct Recruitment of Principal/Director. (level-14, Entry Pay 14200/- with special allowance of Rs. 6750/- per month) a. Ph.D. degree and First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor’s or Master’s level in the relevant branch. (level-14, Entry Pay 14200/- with special allowance of Rs. 6750/- per month) a. Ph.D. degree and First Class or equivalent at either Bachelor’s or Master’s level in the relevant branch. b. At least two successful Ph.D. guided as supervisor/Co-Supervisor and minimum 8 research publications in SCI journals/UGC/AICTE approved list of journals. c. Minimum 15 years of experience in teaching/research/industry, out of which at least 3 years shall be at the post equivalent to that of Professor.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that though the post of Principal in the Government College of Pharmacy is to be filled in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed by Department of Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, Himachal Pradesh but the minimum educational qualification and other qualifications required for direct recruits as provided under Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be in violation of the Regulations framed by Pharmacy Council of India and All India Council for Teacher Education. He argued that the Pharmacy Council of India and All India Council for Teacher Education have prescribed qualifications and experience for appointment to the post of Director/Principal of Institution and the respondents while framing Recruitment and Promotion Rules are under obligation to provide qualifications and experience for the post concerned, as has been prescribed under Regulations notified by Pharmacy Council of India and All India Council for Teacher Education. Mr. Jairath, argued that though respondent-State can add further qualifications to the qualifications provided under the Regulations notified by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE but definitely the qualifications provided under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules cannot be less than the minimum standards set by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE. In support of aforesaid submissions, Mr. Jairath, placed reliance upon judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 . 7. While refuting the afore submissions made by Mr. Jairaht, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. While inviting attention of this court to the reply filed by respondents Nos. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. (1999) 7 SCC 120 . 7. While refuting the afore submissions made by Mr. Jairaht, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. While inviting attention of this court to the reply filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the regulating agencies i.e. Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE keep on changing norms with respect to educational qualifications and experience for the post of Director/Principal whereas, Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the said post, notified in 2008 could not be amended as per latest regulations of Pharmacy Council of India dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure P-7) or by AICTE vide Notification dated 11.3.2019 annexure R-3. He submitted that the Pharmacy Council of India vide letter dated 11.3.2020 (Annexure R-4), informed that the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall only prevail with regard to recognition and/or approval of pharmacy courses/pharmacy institutions/intake capacity and degrees and diplomas in pharmacy, in light of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Transfer Petitions (Civil) Nos. 87-101 of 2014 8. He further submitted that the educational qualification/experience prescribed in Column No. 7 of Recruitment and Promotion Rules notified on 1.5.2008 are as per regulating agency guidelines prevailing at the time of Notification of said Rules. He further submitted that matter to include relax the conditions of experience in Column No.7 for the post of Director/Principal in Pharmacy Colleges as per Pharmacy Council of India Notification dated 11.11.2014 was taken up with the Pharmacy Council of India but no response has been received. (Annexure R-9). 8. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission adopted aforesaid submissions made on behalf of respondent-State. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that the moot question which has fallen for determination before this court is, ‘whether the respondent-State, while framing Recruitment and Promotion Rules for appointment to the post of Director/Principal of Government College of Pharmacy could prescribe educational qualifications/experience lesser than that provided by statutory authorities like Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE or not?” 10. It is amply clear from the reply filed by the respondents that the Rules (Annexure P-6), were framed by the respondent-State on the basis of Regulations notified by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE. It is amply clear from the reply filed by the respondents that the Rules (Annexure P-6), were framed by the respondent-State on the basis of Regulations notified by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE. It is not in dispute that the Regulations framed in the year 2008 by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE were subsequently amended by way of Notification dated 11.11.2014, whereby essential qualifications/and period of experience for recruitment to the post of Director/Principal in the Government Pharmacy Colleges came to be modified. However, respondents, made no efforts to amend the Recruitment and Promotion Rules to bring them in conformity with the latest Regulations notified by Pharmacy Council of India and the AICTE. 11. Though, Mr, Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting factum with regard to framing of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2008, on the basis of Regulations framed by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE, prevalent at that time, contended that the communication dated 7.6.2021 was sent to Registrar-cum-Secretary, Pharmacy Council of India, requesting therein to relax the prescribed norms in order to avoid future complications but there is no document available on record that such prayer of respondents was ever agreed to by Pharmacy Council of India. Otherwise also, such prayer could not be accepted. 12. Otherwise also, such prayer could not be accepted. 12. In the case at hand, Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed by the respondent State for appointment to the post of Director/Principal in the year 2008, reveal that at that time, minimum essential qualification and experience for the candidates desirous of appointment as Director/Principal of institution was Ph.D degree (with first Class Master’s Degree in the appropriate branch of specialization in Pharmacy and with 10 years experience out of which at least 05 years experience at senior level comparable to that of an Professor, would also be eligible however, such qualification prescribed by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE was further modified by said bodies, while issuing fresh Regulations in 2014 and 2019, wherein aforesaid essential qualification as prescribed under Rule 7 of Rules, came to be amended as under: Director/Principal/Head of Institution First Class B.Pharm with Master’s degree in Pharmacy (M. Pharm) in appropriate branch of specialization in Pharmacy or Pharm.D (Qualifications must be PCI recognized) With Ph.D degree in any of the Pharmacy subjects (Ph.d. Qualifications must be PCI recognized) Essential 15 years experience in teaching or research out of which 5 years must be as Professor/HoD in a PCI approved recognized pharmacy college. Desirable Administrative experience in a responsible position.” 13. Apart from above, 10 years experience provided in earlier regulations came to be modified to 15 years experience in teaching or research out of which 5 years must be as Professor/HoD in a PCI approved recognized pharmacy college. 14. Now the question remains, “whether the respondents can be permitted to go ahead with the appointments to the post in question on the basis of un-amended Recruitment and Promotion Rules or not?’ 15. Once it is not in dispute that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Director/Principal notified by respondents in 2008, were made in consonance with Regulations framed by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE, any amendment with regard to educational qualification and other standards by statutory bodies like Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE, ought to have been incorporated in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules by way of AN amendment. 16. 16. However, in the case at hand though respondents are aware of the fact that the Department cannot prescribe qualifications lesser than as prescribed under the Regulations notified by Pharmacy Council of India and AICTE, yet it continued to make appointment to the post in question on the basis of un-amended rules. 17. Interestingly in the case at hand, respondents instead of taking appropriate steps for amendment of Recruitment and Promotion Rules sought permission of Pharmacy Council of India to relax the rules, which was never granted. Otherwise also, it is not understood on what basis Pharmacy Council of India or the AICTE could relax norms especially with regard to educational qualification and experience. 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) has categorically held that in every case minimum standard laid down by Central Statute shall be complied with by the State, while making admissions. Hon'ble Apex Court held in judgment supra, as under: “39. The respondents have emphasised the observation that admission has to be made by those who are in control of the colleges. But, the question is, on what basis? Admissions must be made on a basis which is consistent with the standards laid down by a statute or regulation framed by the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Entry 66, List I. At times, in some of the judgments, the words "eligibility" and "qualification" have been used interchangeably, and in some cases a distinction has been made between the two words ? "eligibility" connoting the minimum criteria for selection that may be laid down by the University Act or any Central Statute, while "qualifications" connoting the additional norms laid down by the colleges or by the State. In every case the minimum standards as laid down by the Central Statute or under it, have to be complied with by the State while making admissions. It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down.” 19. It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down.” 19. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that the respondents at the first instance made provision of minimum educational qualification strictly in consonance with PCI/AICTE norms and as such, it ought to have amended the Rules from time to time to bring the same in conformity with the Regulations notified by Pharmacy Council of India or the AICTE, which are statutory bodies constituted purposely with a view to regulate the minimum educational standards in appointment of the teachers and admission of students. 20. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Tamil Nadu and another v. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and others AIR 2004 SC 1861 , has held as under: “....The appellant in the present case prescribed the qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the related subjects which is higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. If higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On the other hand, if we proceed on the basis that the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination the additional test made applicable is the common entrance test by the State Government. If we proceed to take the standard fixed by the AICTE to be the common entrance test then the prescription made by the State Government of having obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible to participate in the common entrance test is in addition to the common entrance test. In either event, the streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. In either event, the streams proposed by the AICTE are not belittled in any manner. The manner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what has been prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable and that that minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no other standard could be fixed even the higher as stated by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. It is no doubt true as noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman's case that there may be situations when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for engineering colleges. It is not very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than the mere pass marks. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by series of decisions of this Court including Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. If higher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the matter of admission of the students in higher education.” 21. It is quite apparent from aforesaid exposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court that the State Government cannot tinker with the minimum educational qualification prescribed by the statutory bodies like Pharmacy Council of India or the AICTE. It can only prescribe qualifications higher than the ones prescribed by PCI/AICTE but has no power to reduce the qualification prescribed by Pharmacy Council of India or the AICTE. 22. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 6251 of 2020 titled Vinod Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and connected matters, decided on 26.11.2021, wherein scope of statutory body like National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for issuing regulations in the matter of education has been discussed. Division Bench of this Court held as under: “15. Division Bench of this Court held as under: “15. The issue as to legality, efficacy and prevalence of notification dated 28.6.2018 issued by NCTE is no more res-integra after the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Sharan Maurya and others vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2021 SC 954 . Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the powers & jurisdiction of NCTE vis-a-vis Notification dated 28.06.2018 has been pleased to hold as under: “38.4 It is thus clear that for maintaining standards of education in schools, the NCTE is now specifically empowered to determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in schools or colleges. In addition to regulating standards in “teacher education system”, the NCTE Act now deals with regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in respect of qualifications of persons to be recruited as teachers. By Notification dated 31.03.2010, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23 of the RTE Act authorised the NCTE as an “Academic Authority” to lay down the minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. 40. The Notification dated 28.06.2018 issued by the NCTE was in exercise of power so conferred upon it by virtue of the Notification dated 31.03.2010. In terms of the Notification dated 28.06.2018, the qualification of ‘Bachelor of Education’ from any NCTE recognised institution shall now be a valid qualification for appointment as a teacher in classes I to V provided the person so appointed as a teacher mandatorily undergoes six months’ Bridge Course in elementary education within two years of such appointment. 41. Going by the Parliamentary intent in empowering NCTE under the provisions of the NCTE Act and specific authorization in favour of NCTE under said Notification dated 31.03.2010, the authority of NCTE is beyond any doubt. Though there is no specific regulation as contemplated under Section 32 read with Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, for the present purposes by virtue of the specific authorization under the Notification dated 31.03.2010, NCTE was entitled to lay down that those holding the qualification of ‘Bachelor of Education’ as detailed in said Notification are entitled to be appointed as teachers for classes I to V. Such prescription on part of the NCTE would be binding. It is for this reason that G.O. dated 01.12.2018 notifying ATRE-2019 clearly stated that the candidates possessing minimum qualifications specified in Notifications issued by the NCTE including one dated 28.06.2018 were entitled to participate in ATRE-2019. 43. The Notification dated 28.06.2018 being binding on the State Government, the statutory regime put in place by the State has to be read in conformity with said Notification. The eligibility or entitlement being already conferred by Notification dated 28.06.2018, the amendments to 1981 Rules were effected only to make the statutory regime consistent with the directives issued by the NCTE. The right or eligibility was not conferred by amendments effected to 1981 Rules for the first time and therefore the element of retrospectivity present in the concerned amendments has to be read in that perspective. The intent behind those amendments was not to create a right for the first time with retrospective effect but was only to effectuate the statutory regime in tune or accord with NCTE directives. Theoretically, even if such statutory regime was not made so consistent, the concerned candidates holding B.Ed. degrees could still be eligible and could not have been denied candidature for ATRE- 2019. 23. Thus, it is clear that the regulations issued by the statutory bodies like Pharmacy Council of India, AICTE or the NCTE are binding upon the State and all the subsequent actions of the State should be in conformity with such guidelines/regulations etc. 24. Consequently, in view of above, this court finds merit in the petition, which is accordingly allowed. Rules 7 of Annexure P-6 are quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to take steps for amendment of Annexure P-6 to bring the same in conformity with the essential qualification/experience prescribed by Pharmacy Council of India and/or AICTE for appointment to the post of Director/Principal vide Notification dated 11.11.2014. 25. Since this Court vide instant order has quashed Rule 7 of Recruitment and Promotion Rules, this court hopes and trusts that the respondents, with a view to ensure speedy appointment to the post(s) in question, would do the needful in terms of this order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. 26. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.