JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhatia, J. All the writ petitions, raising common question and as such, the same are being decided by means of a common order. 2. I have Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, Prafulla Tiwari and Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Nitin Mathur, learned Counsel for the State, Shri Ravi Singh learned counsel for P.C.I. Shri D.K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for J.E.E.C. (P) and perused the material available on record. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in Writ-C No. 8389 of 2023 are being reproduced. The petitioners claim to be running a B. Pharma Course and were granted approval by the Pharmacy Council of India for the academic sessions 2022-23 and thereafter for the sessions 2023-24. The approval was granted with the petitioners in pursuance to powers vested in Pharmacy Council of India under the Pharmacy Act. 4. In some of the cases, for the academic sessions 2022-23 the approval was granted by the Pharmacy Council of India and affiliation was also granted by the Board of Technical Education, which is empowered to grant the affiliation. However, in some of the cases, the approval was granted by the Pharmacy of India, however, the affiliation as is required was not granted by the Board of Technical Education and in some cases 'NOC' was refused, which has led to the filing of the present writ petitions for the sessions 2023-24. 5. The contention of counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the Pharmacy Act a council created under the said Act, known as the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) is a statutory body, which is empowered to grant approval to the colleges in respect of B.Pharma and D. Pharma Courses. In terms of the mandate of Section 12 of the said Act, specific provisions exist for enabling an application by an authority, which proposes to conduct the course of study for Pharmacist to apply for approval and on an application being filed PCI, is empowered to grant the approval for running the courses. Section 13 of the said Act empowers the Council to withdraw the approval, on their existing relevant material to do so, in terms of the mandate of the Act. Section 13 of the said Act empowers the Council to withdraw the approval, on their existing relevant material to do so, in terms of the mandate of the Act. Section 16 of the Act provides for power of carrying out inspection in respect of the institutions which are seeking the approval. Section 18 of the said Act empowers the Central Council to make regulations with the approval of Central Government for regulating and carrying out the purpose to the Act. It is stated that in terms of the powers conferred by virtue of Section 10 of the said Act, the Central Government framed regulations known as Educational Regulations 2020, which came into force with effect from 9.10.2020. In terms of the regulations as framed (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations 2020), minimum qualifications required for the students undertaking the courses were prescribed. Regulation 8 confers the power of the Pharmacy Council of India to grant the approval to any authority, which is intending to start or conduct the diploma courses. The Pharmacy Council of India is also empowered to prescribe the regular academic study in terms of Regulations 8 (2) and specifically proviso thereto, places a restriction on Pharmacy Council of India to grant approval to any institutions unless all the parameters including the teaching, accommodation, equipment and teaching staff etc. are available with the institutions seeking the approval of the Pharmacy Council of India. Thus, in terms of the said Act, the PCI is empowered to grant approval and also places restrictions in granting the approval for want of the arrangements for teaching, equipment and teaching staff, etc. The Pharmacy Council of India is empowered to grant the approval for the institutions running B.Pharma and D.Pharma courses, however, the power to issue diploma vests with the Board of Technical Education in State of U.P., which works and carries out the duties in terms of U.P. Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam 1962 and the regulations framed thereunder. 6. It is argued that although the petitioners have been granted approval by the PCI, the extension of affiliation for year 2023-24 has been refused to them based upon some inspections carried out by some committee, without even informing the petitioners the reasons or any deficiencies. In some of the cases, an NOC has been refused on same foundation and aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have approached this Court. In some of the cases, an NOC has been refused on same foundation and aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have approached this Court. It is argued that once the approval is granted by PCI, the Board of Technical Education or the State have no powers to refuse affiliations. 7. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that in terms of the Act 1962, the powers of the Board constituted under the Act or specified under Section 13 and the power of the State Government to issue directions from time to time vest by virtue of Section 14 of the Act. He draws my attention towards Section 13 (2) (vi) wherein, the Board can refuse affiliation to any institutions, which does not fulfill the criteria prescribed in terms of standard of staff, instructions, equipments, buildings, as may be laid down by the Board in this behalf. He also draws my attention to the regulations framed in exercise of power under Section 23 of the said Act and specifically draws my attention to Regulation 12, which provides for constitution of an inspection and affiliation committee comprising of six persons specified in regulation 12. He also draws my attention to Regulation 13, which provides for the duties to be followed by the Inspection and Affiliation Committee. In the light of the said powers conferred, by virtue of the Act and the Regulations, it is argued that the State Government had got inspections carried out in respect of various institutions seeking affiliation and they were found to be wanting on various aspects, such as, said institutions were not possessed of the requisite infrastructure, etc. It is also argued that in terms of the report obtained from the committee comprising of the District Magistrate, the decision was taken not to grant affiliation to various institutions, who had applied for the same. 8. It appears from the record that prior to the present writ petitions being filed, a requirement for obtaining 'NOC' from the State Government was prescribed by the Pharmacy Council of India in respect of the any institutions, which was desirous of obtaining an approval for running the course, the issue of requirement of 'NOC' was put to challenge by various institutions. The issue was addressed by this Court in the case of Committee of Management Jai Prakash Charitable Trust v. State of U.P. and others alongwith connected matter 2023 (10) ADJ 3 (LB) wherein this Court had held that the requirement prescribing for obtaining the 'NOC' is bad in law. While deciding the said writ petitions, the following directions were given by this Court, which are quoted herein below : (35) A bare reading of the aforesaid impugned letter reveals that the manner in which the impugned action has been taken by the State Government/Board, is violative of principle of natural justice as the impugned letter gives rises to civil consequences for the reason that on the direction of the State Government, the district authorities have conducted a surprise inspection of these pharmacy institutions and have also submitted an inspection report of discrepancy/shortcomings arose in the these institutions to the State Government and on the basis of the said report, the State Government took decision to cancel the NOC granted earlier to these institutions and thereafter on the decision of the State Government, the Board issued the impugned letter cancelling the NOC of the petitioners/institution, however, no opportunity whatsoever has been granted to the petitioners/institutions to putforth their version in respect of the said discrepancy/shortcomings to the petitioners/institutions before taking impugned action cancelling the NOC of these institutions. (36) Thus, this Court is of the view that since neither any show-cause notice nor any opportunity of explanation has been sought from these institutions by the the State/Board and mechanical impugned letter for cancellation of NOC has been issued by them without assigning any reasoning, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The importance of a show-cause notice as has been reiterated by Apex Court in the case of Umanath Pandey v. State of U.P., (2009) 12 SCC 40 is as under: ''Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him.'' (37) It is pertinent to mention here that had any show-cause notice been issued to these institutions by the State/Board, the matter would had ended there and then as apparently in most of the cases, these petitioners have a plausible answer/reasoning for the deficiency pointed out by the State/Board. In any case, the law stands settled that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies even to authorities, who adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. (38) Before parting, this Court may observe that there could indeed be a necessity to impose certain restrictions so as to prevent mushrooming growth of pharmacy colleges. Such restrictions may be in the larger general public interest. However, if that has to be done, it has to be done strictly in accordance with law and not in the manner has purportedly has been sought to be adopted by the State Government. In any case, if and when such restrictions are imposed by an authority competent to do so, the validity of the same can always be scrutinized on the touchstone of law. (39) It is further to be noted that the applications seeking approval for D. Pharma or B. Pharma courses, as the case may be, are required to be accompanied by a ''No Objection Certificate'' (''NOC'') from the State Government and consent of affiliation from the affiliating bodies i.e. PCI. While scrutinizing such applications, the Council can always take into consideration various factors, including the reservation/comment of the State Government, if any, before deciding to allow or reject such applications. ''(40) For all the aforesaid reasons, the above-captioned writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : i. Impugned letter dated 18.5.2023 issued by the Secretary of the Board and consequential order, if any, in reference to the impugned letter dated 18.5.2023 are hereby quashed. ii. ''(40) For all the aforesaid reasons, the above-captioned writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : i. Impugned letter dated 18.5.2023 issued by the Secretary of the Board and consequential order, if any, in reference to the impugned letter dated 18.5.2023 are hereby quashed. ii. Liberty is granted to the State Government/Board to take action on the issue, in accordance with law, if so desires. iii. If the State Government/Board refers any issue in respect of the petitioners/institutions to the PCI, this Court hope and trust that the PCI shall make an earnest endeavour to consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the aggrieved person(s) expeditiously.'' 9. In the light of the said directions, it was incumbent upon the Board to have taken a decision with regard to request for extension of affiliation by various institutes for the session 2023-24, however, the requests for the same was turned down in some of the cases vide order dated 25.9.2023. 10. The problem in the present cases has arisen in respect of the institutions, which have been granted approval by the Pharmacy Council of India but their request for extension of affiliation for the session 2023-24 has been rejected by means of order dated 25.9.2023 in terms of the decision of the Board mainly based upon the ground that an inspection was carried out and in terms of the report submitted by the District Magistrate, certain shortcomings were cited, which were not fulfilled by the institutions, as such, the applications for extension of grant of approval were rejected. 11. The counsel for the respondent Board as well as learned Standing Counsel have argued that an advisory has been issued by the Board not to grant the approval of extension in respect of the cases where the report of the District Magistrate highlights discrepancies, however, the shortcomings are not rectified. 12. 11. The counsel for the respondent Board as well as learned Standing Counsel have argued that an advisory has been issued by the Board not to grant the approval of extension in respect of the cases where the report of the District Magistrate highlights discrepancies, however, the shortcomings are not rectified. 12. The counsel for petitioners as well as respondents also placed before this Court, an order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 9048 of 2012 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1927 of 2023 wherein the Supreme Court, on an application filed by AICTE and the Pharmacy Council of India, had passed an order disposing of three applications vide its order dated 6.9.2023, the extract of the said order is quoted hereinbelow : ''M.A. No. 1927/2023 in C.A. No. 9048/2012 ''(a) Grant extension of the date for completion of approval process up to October 31st 2023 and appeals/compliances process till November 30th 2023 to the Applicant/Pharmacy Council of India for the academic year 2023-24;'' MA 1928/2023 in C.A. No. 9048/2012 ''(a) extend the cut-off date for grant of affiliation upto 15.9.2023 in respect of Applicant Technical Institutions/courses approved by AICTE for the Academic Session 2023-24.'' MA No. 1929/2023 in C.A. No. 9048/2012 ''(a) Extend/relax the cut-off dates specified in order dtd. 24.3.2023 for affiliation and completion of Admissions process by the Applicant University to AICTE and CoA approved courses/institutions by a reasonable time, as provided in para 21 of this Application.'' 3. Needless to state that the period for counselling shall stand extended by one month thereafter. 4. The applications are, accordingly, disposed of.'' 13. The counsel for the petitioners also draws my attention to the guidelines issued by the State Government on 30.6.2023 containing a flow chart indicating the manner in which, the affiliation applications ought to be disposed of. A flow chart of the affiliation process is being quoted herein below (page 206 in Writ-C No. 7818 of 2023) : 14. On the reading of the flow chart as issued by the State Government, it becomes clear that the approval from PCI/AICTE/CoA is to be obtained prior in point of time before applying for affiliation from the examining authority. A flow chart of the affiliation process is being quoted herein below (page 206 in Writ-C No. 7818 of 2023) : 14. On the reading of the flow chart as issued by the State Government, it becomes clear that the approval from PCI/AICTE/CoA is to be obtained prior in point of time before applying for affiliation from the examining authority. In the light of the said document and the order of the Supreme Court as quoted herein above, submission of counsel for petitioners is that once the Supreme Court itself has extended the time for seeking approval up to 31.10.2023 in respect of the Pharmacy Council of India for the academic sessions 2023-24, it cannot be contemplated that the approval process would not get extended further. In fact, he argues that in terms of the said order itself it was clarified that the process of counselling shall also stand extended by one month thereafter. He argues that on plain reading of the order passed by the Supreme Court, the only logical thing that can flow is that the approval process is to be completed by 31.10.2023, thereafter the affiliation is to be concluded by the respective boards and thereafter the counselling process would get extended and concluded after the processes are over, whereas in the present case, the State Government has issued counselling schedule in its decision taken on 16.9.2023 wherein the first round of counselling commenced with effect from 25.9.2023 and the first round of allotment is to take place on 28.9.2023. 15. It is argued that when some of the matters were being heard before this Court, in respect of the institutions, which had sought affiliation, but their affiliation applications were not being decided, this Court had noted down the statement of Government Counsel that the counselling process is not likely to commence soon and was also stated that the same is likely to be initiated next week. The said statement was given on 20.9.2023 and in the light of the said statement, coupled with the statement that a decision shall be taken in terms of the directions issued within a period of one week, this Court in its order dated 20.9.2023 had directed the Board to take a decision on the application of the petitioners therein for grant of affiliation within a period of one week, however, before initiating the counselling process. In terms of the said directions given, the order refusing the affiliation was passed by the Board in its meeting held on 25.9.2023. 16. The counsel for the petitioners argues that a wrong statement was made before this Court when this Court was passing order dated 20.9.2023, inasmuch as, in the counselling schedule notified and challenged in some of the petitions itself indicates that the decision to notify the schedule of counselling was taken on 16.9.2023 and once the said decision was taken, the same ought to have been informed to the Court. In any case, it is proposed to be argued that the entire basis for refusing the affiliation as can be discerned from the order dated 25.9.2023, being the report of the District Magistrate is neither in accordance with the regulations relied upon by the respondents nor was the said decision ever communicated to the petitioners at any point of time. It is further argued that in any event, the Supreme Court has categorically held in the catena of cases, the interplay between the rights of Pharmacy Council of India, constituted under a Central Act and the powers to be exercised by the affiliating body. My attention is drawn to paragraph No. 24 and 25 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others v. All India Council for Technical Educatoin and others; (2013) 3 SCC 385 and Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal Educational Trusts Vidarbha Institute of Pharmacy and others, (2021) 10 SCC 657 . The said argument is to impress that all the powers, which are vested in the Pharmacy Council of India being under Central Act in respect of the approval will supersede and the powers conferred upon the Board by virtue of the 1962 Act and the regulations framed thereunder have to give way to the powers to be exercised by the PCI. 17. An argument is also raised that the difference between approval and affiliation, is very significant and has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Principal and others v. The Presiding Officer and others; (1978) 1 SCC 498 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under : ''There is a significant difference between 'affiliation' and 'recognition. 17. An argument is also raised that the difference between approval and affiliation, is very significant and has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Principal and others v. The Presiding Officer and others; (1978) 1 SCC 498 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under : ''There is a significant difference between 'affiliation' and 'recognition. Whereas 'affiliation', it may be noted, is meant to prepare and present the students for public examination, 'recognition' of a private school is for other purposes mentioned in the Act and it is only when the School is recognised by the ''appropriate authority'' that it becomes amenable to other provisions of the Act.'' 18. From the arguments raised at the Bar and quoted herein above, it is required that this Court appreciates the manner in which the two Acts, first being Pharmacy Act, 1948 and the second being The Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyan, 1962 are to operate. 19. The Pharmacy Act, 1948 was enacted to regulate the profession of Pharmacy. The Statements of Objects and Reasons for which the Pharmacy Act was enacted clearly laid down that the Act is to regulate the professional education required to practice the profession of pharmacy for which several provisions were made. The Act enacted in the year 1948 was amended by Amendment Act No. 24 of 1959 and further by Amendment Act No. 22 of 1982. The Pharmacy Act provides for constitution of Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) under Chapter II and by virtue of Section 10 of the said Act, the Central Council, with the approval of the Central Government, could make regulations to be called the Education Regulations, prescribing the minimum standing of education required for qualification as a Pharmacist. Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 is quoted herein below : ''10. Education Regulations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, 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. Section 10 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 is quoted herein below : ''10. Education Regulations.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, 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. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the Education Regulations may prescribe - (a) the nature and period of study and of practical training to be undertaken before admission to an examination; (b) the equipment and facilities to be provided for students undergoing approved courses of study; (c) the subjects of examination and the standards therein to be attained; (d) any other conditions of admission to examinations. (3) Copies of the draft of Education Regulations and of all subsequent amendment thereof shall be furnished by the Central Council to all State Governments, and the Central Council shall before submitting the Education Regulations or any amendment thereof, as the case may be, to the Central Government for approval under sub-section (1) take into consideration the comments of any State Government received within three months from the furnishing of the copies as aforesaid. (4) The Education Regulations shall be published in the Official Gazette and in such other manner as the Central Council may direct. (5) The Executive Committee shall from time to time report to the Central Council on the efficacy of the Education Regulations and may recommend to the Central Council such amendments thereof as it may think fit.'' Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the PCI to grant approval to the institutions desirous of imparting Pharmacy Education. Section 12 is quoted hereunder : 12. Approved courses of study and examinations.- (1) 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 the 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. (2) Any authority in a State which holds an examination in pharmacy may apply to the Central Council for approval of the examination, and the Central Council, if satisfied, after such enquiry as it thinks fit to make, that the said examination is in conformity with the Education Regulations, shall declare the said examination to be an approved examination for the purpose of qualifying for registration as a pharmacist under this Act. (3) Every authority in the States which conducts an approved course of study or holds an approved examination shall furnish such information as the Central Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and training and examination to be undergone, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examination are required to be undergone and generally as to the requisites for such courses of study and examination. 20. Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act empowers the Central Council to withdraw the approval so granted on any infirmity being brought to its notice through the State Government. Section 13 is quoted herein below : 13. Withdrawal of approval.-(1) Where the Executive Committee reports to the Central Council that an approved course of study or an approved examination does not continue to be in conformity with the Education Regulations, the Central Council shall give notice to the authority concerned of its intention to take into consideration the question of withdrawing the declaration of approval accorded to the course of study or examination, as the case may be, and the said authority shall within three months from the receipt of such notice forward to the Central Council through the State Government such representation in the matter as it may wish to make. (2) After considering any representation which may be received from the authority concerned and any observations thereon which the State Government may think fit to make, the Council may declare that the course of study or the examination shall be deemed to be approved only when completed or passed, as the case may be, before a specified date.'' 21. In terms of the power conferred on the Central Council by virtue of Section 18 of the said Act, it can make regulations to carry out the purposes of this Chapter. 22. In terms of the power conferred on the Central Council by virtue of Section 18 of the said Act, it can make regulations to carry out the purposes of this Chapter. 22. Chapter III of the Pharmacy Act makes a provision for constitution of State Council in the event of there being an agreement made under Section 20 in between the States, however, the said powers need not be gone into by this Court for the purposes of adjudicating the controversy raised in the present case. 23. In terms of the powers conferred upon the Central Council, Education Regulations were framed in the year 2020 by virtue of Notification dated 9.10.2020. The said regulations prescribed for the course of Study. Regulation 8 prohibits any authority from starting or conducting a diploma in pharmacy course without the prior approval of the PCI; Regulation 9 prescribes for examinations to be held at the end of the academic year; Regulation 10 prescribes for eligibility for appearing in the diploma examinations; Regulation 16 provides that the examinations required to be undertaken by the students pursuing the diploma course is to be held by an authority in a State which is to be approved by the PCI under Section 12(2) of the Pharmacy Act and it further mandates that the approval is to be granted to the Examining Authority only if it fulfills the conditions specified in Appendix-B to the Regulations; and Regulations 17 mandates and empowers the Examining Authority to grant a certificate of having passed the examination for the Diploma in Pharmacy. 24. Regulation 8, which is relevant in the present case, prescribes that any authority intending to start a diploma course shall obtain the prior approval of the PCI and fulfils the requirement as are specified in Appendix - A to the Regulations. Appendix - A to the Regulations prescribes for the requirement of accommodation, staff and non-teaching staff etc. Regulation 8, Regulation 9 and Appendix - A to the Regulations are extracted herein below : ''8. Approval of the authority conducting the course of study- (1) No authority in a State shall start or conduct Diploma in Pharmacy course of study without the prior approval of the Pharmacy Council of India. Regulation 8, Regulation 9 and Appendix - A to the Regulations are extracted herein below : ''8. Approval of the authority conducting the course of study- (1) No authority in a State shall start or conduct Diploma in Pharmacy course of study without the prior approval of the Pharmacy Council of India. (2) The course of regular academic study prescribed under regulation 6 shall be conducted in an institution, approved by the Pharmacy Council of India under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Provided that the Pharmacy Council of India shall not approve any institution under this regulation unless it provides adequate arrangements for teaching in regard to building, accommodation, equipments and teaching staff etc. as specified in Appendix-A to these regulations which may be amended by the Pharmacy Council of India from time to time. 9. Examination- (1) There shall be an annual examination at the end of the academic year. (2) If necessary, there shall be a supplementary examination for the students who are not able to pass Diploma in Pharmacy Part-1 or Part-II, as the case may be, as per the criteria specified by the examining authority. (3) The examinations shall be of written and practical (including viva-voce) nature, carrying maximum marks for each part of a subject, as indicated in Table IV and V below. ........ Appendix-A (See regulation 8) Conditions to be fulfilled by the academic institution Any authority in India applying to the Pharmacy Council of India for approval of courses of study for Pharmacists under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall provide. (A) ACCOMMODATION Suitable and sufficient accommodation with adequate ventilation lighting and other hygienic conditions should be provided to the rooms for Principal/Head of the department, office, class room, library, staff, staff common room, students common room, museum, stores etc. At least four laboratories specified below should be provided for : 1. Pharmaceutics Lab. 2. Pharm. Chemistry Lab. 3. Physiology, Pharmacology and Pharmacognosy Lab. 4. Biochemistry, Clinical Pathology, Hospital and Clinical Pharmacy Lab. In addition to the laboratories, balance room, aseptic room or cabinet, a machine room are also to be provided for. Floor area of the laboratory should not be less than 30 square feet per student required to work in the laboratory at any given time subject to a minimum of 500 square feet. In addition to the laboratories, balance room, aseptic room or cabinet, a machine room are also to be provided for. Floor area of the laboratory should not be less than 30 square feet per student required to work in the laboratory at any given time subject to a minimum of 500 square feet. Laboratories should be fitted and constructed in a manner that these can be kept reasonably clean. Gas and water fittings, shelves, fume cupboards be provided wherever necessary. The institutions shall provide ''Model Pharmacy'' as per following details - Model Pharmacy No. Area Essential : Running Model Community Pharmacy Desirable : Drug Model Store 01 80 Sq. Mts. (Including 10 Sq. mt for Drug Information Centre and 10 Sq. mt. for Patient Counseling) Wherever animal experimentations are prescribed in the curriculum, the required knowledge and skill should be imparted by using computer assisted modules. Animal hold area shall be as per the Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) guidelines. (B) STAFF Principal/Director/Professor/Head of Institution/Head of the Department may be engaged in teaching upto eight hours a week, and the work load of other teaching staff should not be more than sixteen hours per week. Staff student ratio should not exceed 1:60 in theory classes and 1:20 in practical classes. There should be two teachers for a batch of 30 students in practicals. According to the above norms, the following staff is required for an intake of 60 students: 1. Principal/Director/Professor/Head of Institution/Head of the Department - One 2. Lecturer : M.Pharm/Pharm.D B.Pharm with 3 years of professional experience - Three - Four In addition to regular faculty, the institution can have Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S) faculty as visiting faculty for teaching Anatomy and Physiology and Biochemistry and Clinical Pathology. The minimum qualification and experience of the teaching faculty including the Principal/Director/Professor/Head of Institution/Head of Department and their pay-scales shall be as prescribed in the Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Pharmacy Institutions Regulations, 2014. The pay scale of teaching staff shall not be less than the scale of pay prescribed by the State Government/University Grants Commission/All India Council for Technical Education for similar category of posts. Provided that the above qualifications shall not apply to the incumbents appointed under the repealed Education Regulations. Non-Teaching Staff List of Non-Teaching staff for the D.Pharm course: 1. The pay scale of teaching staff shall not be less than the scale of pay prescribed by the State Government/University Grants Commission/All India Council for Technical Education for similar category of posts. Provided that the above qualifications shall not apply to the incumbents appointed under the repealed Education Regulations. Non-Teaching Staff List of Non-Teaching staff for the D.Pharm course: 1. Laboratory Technician (Qualification-Diploma in Pharmacy) 2 2. Laboratory Attendent 4 3. Office Superintendent 1 4. Clerk-cum-Accountant 1 5. Store-Keeper 1 6. Typist 1 7. Asstt. Librarian 1 8. Peons 2 9. Cleaners/Sweepers 4 10. Gardener 1 Museum Every institution shall maintain a museum of crude drugs, herbarium sheets, botanical specimens of the drugs and plants mentioned in the course. In addition, the following are recommended : 1. Coloured slides of medicinal plants: 2. Display of popular patent medicines; and 3. Containers of common usage in medicines. Library Every institution shall maintain a library which should contain books mentioned in the syllabus and also the current pharmaceutical journals. There should be adequate place in the library for students and staff to refer books. NOTE: The above requirements are the minimum requirements and the Institution is free to provide more-physical and teaching facility. Equipments The list of equipments and apparatus shall be as may be decided by the Pharmacy Council of India from time to time.'' 25. As noticed herein above, the Central Act being the Pharmacy Act, 1948 as amended from time to time and the Examinations Regulations of the year 2020 clearly hold the field as far as pharmacy education in India is concerned as is also held by Supreme Court in Pharmacy Council of India v. Dr. S.K. Toshniwal (Supra). 26. In the State of Uttar Pradesh, an Act being U.P. Act No. 17 of 1962 was enacted known as The Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962 to provide for the Establishment and constitution of a Board of Technical Education in Uttar Pradesh and for the matters connected therewith. In terms of the said 1962 Act, the establishment and constitution of the Board was envisaged under Section 3 and 4 of the said Act; the functions and duties of the Board were prescribed under Section 12 and the powers of the Board constituted under the Act were prescribed under Section 13. In terms of the said 1962 Act, the establishment and constitution of the Board was envisaged under Section 3 and 4 of the said Act; the functions and duties of the Board were prescribed under Section 12 and the powers of the Board constituted under the Act were prescribed under Section 13. The said Act conferred powers on the State Government to communicate to the Board its views on any work done or conducted by the Board in respect of the functions to be performed by the Board - in short, the said section gives a sort of power of superintendence of the State Government over the Board. Section 12, 13 and 14 of the Act are quoted herein below : ''12. Functions and duties of the Board.-Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder, the functions and duties of the Board shall be - (i) to affiliate institutions and prescribe courses of study and instructions leading to examinations conducted by it; (ii) to prescribe standards for buildings and equipment of affiliated institutions; (iii) to prescribe educational qualifications and other standards for the members of staff of affiliated institution; (iv) to prescribe educational and other qualifications for admission of students to affiliated institutions; (v) to prescribe the manner of admission of students to affiliated institutions; (vi) to admit candidates to examinations conducted by it; (vii) to conduct examinations for promotion from lower to higher classes and also for awarding certificates and diplomas; (viii) to publish results of examinations conducted by it; (ix) to grant certificates and diplomas to students who have completed the prescribed courses of study in an affiliated institution and have passed the examinations conducted by it; (x) to co-operate with other authorities and bodies in such manner and for such purposes as may be necessary for giving effect to the provisions of this Act; (xi) to advise the State Government on coordinated development of technical education and training regarding the same. (xii) to do all other such acts and things as may be necessary for the proper discharge of its functions under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder; and (xiii) to carry out such other duties as may be imposed upon it under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. 13. (xii) to do all other such acts and things as may be necessary for the proper discharge of its functions under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder; and (xiii) to carry out such other duties as may be imposed upon it under this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. 13. Powers of the Board.-(1) The Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, have all such powers as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions and the performance of its duties under this Act, or the rules or regulations made thereunder. 13. Powers of the Board.-(1) The Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, have all such powers as may be necessary for the discharge of its functions and the performance of its duties under this Act, or the rules or regulations made thereunder. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, the Board shall have the powers; (i) to cancel an examination or withhold the result of an examination of a candidate, or to disallow him from appearing at any future examination who is found by it to be guilty of- (a) using unfair means in the examination; or (b) making any incorrect statement or suppressing material information or fact in the application form for admission to the institution or to the examination; or (c) fraud or impersonation at the examination; or (d) securing admission to the examination in contravention of the rules governing admission to such examination; or (e) any act of gross indiscipline in the course of the examination; (i-A) to deduct marks at an examination of any candidate found it to be guilty of any act of indiscipline in the course of the examination; (ii) to cancel the result of an examination of any candidate found by it to be guilty of all or any of the acts mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause (i) or for any bona fide error of the Board in the declaration of the result; Provided that the result of an examination shall not be cancelled on the ground of a bona fide error of the Board after the expiry of 90 days from the date of announcement of the result of the examination; (iii) to prescribe fees for the examinations conducted by it and provide for the manner of their realisation; (iv) to refuse affiliation of an institution- (a) which does not fulfil, or is not in a position to fulfil, or does not come up to, the standards for staff, instructions, equipment, or buildings laid down by the Board in this behalf; or (b) which does not or is not willing to abide by the conditions of affiliation laid down by the Board in this behalf, (v) to withdraw affiliation of an institution not able to adhere to or make provision for, standards of staff, instructions, equipment, or buildings laid down by the Board, or on its failure to observe the conditions of affiliation, to the satisfaction of the Board; (vi) to call for reports from the heads of affiliated institution in respect of any act of contravention of the rules or regulations or decisions, instructions or directions of the Board, and take suitable action for the enforcement of the rules or regulations or decisions, instructions or directions of the Board, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations; (vii) to inspect an affiliated institution for the purpose of ensuring due observance of the prescribed courses of study and that facilities for instruction are duly provided and availed of; and (viii) to fix the maximum number to students that may be admitted to courses of study in an affiliated institution. (3) The decision of the Board in all matters mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be final.'' 14. Powers of the State Government.-(1) The State Government may communicate to the Board its views on any work done or conducted by the Board or in respect of any matter with which the Board is concerned and the Board shall thereupon report to the State Government the action taken or proposed to be taken by it in regard thereto. (2) If the Board fails to take action within a reasonable time to the satisfaction of the State Government or fails to communicate the action taken or proposed to be taken, the State Government may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the Board, issue such directions consistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder as it may think fit. The Board shall comply with the said direction within the time specified therein and if it fails to do so, the State Government may take all such steps as it may deem necessary to give effect to such directions. (3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-sections (1) and (2), the State Government, in any emergency which in its opinion requires that immediate action should be taken, may, without prior reference to the Board, issue such directions or take such other action consistent with the express provisions of this Act as it may think fit.'' 27. Section 23 of the said Act empowers the Board to frame regulations which are consistent with the provisions of the Act and for the purposes as specified in Regulation 23(2) of the said Act. In terms of the powers prescribed under Section 23, the State Government framed regulations known as The Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha (Admission Conduct of Educations and Conferment of Certificates and Diplomas) Regulations, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 1992 Regulations'). 28. In terms of the powers conferred by Section 23 of the 1962 Act, the State Government further framed regulations known as The Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha (Committee and Sub-Committees, Affiliation of Institutions) Regulation, 2000 (herein after referred to as 'the 2000 Regulations'). In terms of Regulation 4 of the 2000 Regulations, the Examination Committee was to comprise of the persons specified therein and their duties were prescribed under Regulation 5 thereof. In terms of Regulation 4 of the 2000 Regulations, the Examination Committee was to comprise of the persons specified therein and their duties were prescribed under Regulation 5 thereof. Section 12 of the 2000 Regulations provides for Inspection and Affiliation Committee to comprise all persons specified in Regulation 12, and Regulation 13 thereof empower the said Inspection and Affiliation Committee to carry out the duties. Regulation 14 provides for conditions of affiliation. Regulation 12, 13 and 14, which are relevant in the present case and were heavily relied upon by learned Standing Counsel, are being reproduced herein below : ''12. Inspection and Affiliation Committee.-(1) Inspection and Affiliation Committee shall consist of : (1) Director, Institute of Research, Development and Training, Kanpur Chairman (2) Joint Director, Technical Education of Concerned Zone Member (3) Four experts of Engineering and Technology Member (4) Regional Officer, All India Council of Technical Education, Kanpur Member (5) One Representative of Engineering College not below the rank of Professor Member (6) Secretary, Board of Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Member/Secretary (2) For the purpose of scrutiny of applications of affiliations of new institution at a preliminary stage Committee may constitute a sub-committee consisting of not less than three members which shall scrutinize and approve the applications. 13. Duties of Inspection and Affiliation Committee.-(1) The duties of the Inspection and Affiliation Committee shall be.- (a) to examine proposals on the form prescribed by the Board from time to time regarding affiliation of any new institution or any affiliated institution proposing to start a new course of study and to make recommendations for affiliation after considering as far as possible, the following points: (i) whether there is a demand for a particular course of study for which affiliation is sought? (ii) whether the proposed location of institution is satisfactory? (iii) whether adequate facilities near the proposed location are available to the proposed institution for power and water supply? (iv) whether sufficient land is available as per norms of the All India Council of Technical Education? (v) whether the financial resource for the purpose of the institution are adequate is per norms of the All India Council of Technical education? (vi) whether adequate hostel facilities in connection with the institution are available? (vii) whether the staff, building and equipment for running the institution or courses of study are adequate as per norms of the All India Council of Technical Education? (vi) whether adequate hostel facilities in connection with the institution are available? (vii) whether the staff, building and equipment for running the institution or courses of study are adequate as per norms of the All India Council of Technical Education? And (viii) whether the authorities of the proposed institution are prepared to abide by the conditions of affiliations laid down by the Board. (b) to inspect if necessary, any institution seeking affiliation or any affiliated institution seeking permission to start any additional course of study and to make recommendations for it. (2) Whenever an inspection is carried out as laid down in sub-clause (b) of Clause (1), the inspection report shall be reduced to writing and shall be sent to the Chairman. 14. Conditions for affiliation.-The following shall be the conditions for affiliation of an institution under these regulations.- (a) it shall be open to inspection by the committee; (b) it shall submit all information and return called for by the Board or its committee on the prescribed Form; (c) it shall make suitable arrangements for the health, recreation and supervision of the boarders and for the sanitation on its premises; (d) it shall, on demand by the Board place its staff, buildings and furniture, at the disposal of the Board for conducting Board's examination; (e) it shall provide the facilities of staff buildings, equipment, workshop library as per standard prescribed by the Board and maintain the same and shall furnish all such information and facilities as may be required by the Board from time to time for inspection; (f) it shall not seek affiliation of any other Board or any other examining body conducting diploma examinations in Engineering, Technology or any other branch for which the Board conducts examinations and awards diplomas; (g) it shall follow the syllabus of courses of study as may be approved by the Board; and (h) it shall not start any new course of study without the prior permission of the State Government.'' 29. Thus, on the one hand, it is the Pharmacy Council of India, which is empowered to grant the approval after the desiring institution applying and fulfilling the criterias as specified in Appendix-A of the Education Regulations 2020, which were adequately granted to the petitioners, on the other hand, the Board constituted under the said Act has either refused to grant the NOC or has refused to grant the extension of affiliation for conducting the examination citing deficiencies as pointed out in some report carried out by the District Magistrate, which the petitioners are not even aware of. 30. It is essential to note that the power of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions vests with the Union in terms of Entry No. 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and the power of the State Government to enact laws are provided in Entry No. 25 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Constitution of India. Entry No. 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule is as under : ''66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.'' Whereas, Entry No. 25 of List III (Concurrent List) are as under : ''25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.'' 31. Thus, in view of the two entries it is clear that the Central Government which is empowered to frame rules in respect of technical education and the powers of the State Government to frame laws are restricted by the language used in Entry No. 25 of List III (Concurrent List) as quoted herein above and is subject to provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Although, the prescriptions of requirement in terms of the infrastructure etc., are similar in terms of Regulations of 2020 framed by the PCI and the Regulations of 2000 framed by the State, however, once the approval was granted by the PCI after verifying the parameters as specified in Appendix - A to the 2020 Regulations, the State Government has almost no role to play insofar as it relates to the verification of the conditions based upon which the approvals are granted by the PCI. This view is also fortified by the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others (supra) in the following paragraphs : ''24. The consistent view of this Court has been that where both Parliament and the State Legislature have the power to legislate, the Central Act shall take precedence in the matters which are covered by such legislation and the State enactments shall pave way for such legislations to the extent they are in conflict or repugnant. As per the established canons of law, primacy of the Central Act is indisputable which necessarily implies primacy of Aicte in the field of technical education. Statutes like the present one as well as the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, etc. fall within the ambit of this canon of law. Aicte is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining operational standards and judging the infrastructure and facilities available for imparting professional education. It shall take precedence over the opinion of the State as well as that of the University. The department concerned of the State and the affiliating university have a role to play, but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guidelines or policies in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. The State can frame its policies, but such policy again has to be in conformity with the direction issued by the Central body. Though there is no such apparent conflict in the present case, yet it needs to be clarified that grant of approval by the State and affiliation by the University for increased intake of seats or commencement of new college should not be repugnant to the conditions of approval/recommendation granted by Aicte. These authorities have to work in tandem as all of them have the common object to ensure maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and proper infrastructure for betterment of technical educational system. 25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as Aicte have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the Courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. 25. It is also a settled principle that the regulations framed by the Central authorities such as Aicte have the force of law and are binding on all concerned. Once approval is granted or declined by such expert body, the Courts would normally not substitute their view in this regard. Such expert views would normally be accepted by the Court unless the powers vested in such expert body are exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in a manner impermissible under the Regulations and the Aicte Act. In All India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan [ (2009) 11 SCC 726 ], this Court, while stating the principles that the Courts may not substitute their opinion in place of the opinion of the Council, held as under: (SCC pp. 732-33 and 736, paras 17-18 and 32) ''17. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and the role of Courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the Courts keep their hands off. If any provision of law or principle of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connected with education, the Courts will step in. In J.P. Kulshrestha v. Allahabad University [ (1980) 3 SCC 418 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 436 : (1980) 2 LLJ 175 ] this Court observed: (SCC pp. 424-26, paras 11-17) '11. ... Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread. * * * 17. ... While there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence that Courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies.' (emphasis supplied) 18. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth [ (1984) 4 SCC 27 : (1985) 1 SCR 29 ] this Court reiterated: (SCC pp. 56-57, para 29) '29.... the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.' * * * 32. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the Court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. This is a classic case where an educational course has been created and continued merely by the fiat of the Court, without any prior statutory or academic evaluation or assessment or acceptance. Granting approval for a new course or programme requires examination of various academic/technical facets which can only be done by an expert body like Aicte. This function cannot obviously be taken over or discharged by Courts. In this case, for example, by a mandamus of the Court, a bridge course was permitted for four-year advance diploma-holders who had passed the entry-level examination of 10+2 with PCM subjects. Thereafter, by another mandamus in another case, what was a one-time measure was extended for several years and was also extended to post diploma-holders. Again by another mandamus, it was extended to those who had passed only 10+1 examination instead of the required minimum of 10+2 examination. Each direction was obviously intended to give relief to students who wanted to better their career prospects, purely as an ad hoc measure. But together they lead to an unintended dilution of educational standards, adversely affecting the standards and quality of engineering degree courses. Courts should guard against such forays in the field of education.'' (emphasis in original) 32. The scope and effect of two entries being Entry No. 66 of List-I of the VIIth Scheduled and the Entry No. 25 of List-III of the Concurrent List came up for interpretation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of T.N. and another v. Adhiyaman Education & Research Institute and others; (1995) 4 SCC 104 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the various arguments advanced and after discussion of rival contentions held as under : ''27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the various arguments advanced and after discussion of rival contentions held as under : ''27. The provisions of the State Act enumerated above show that if it is made applicable to the technical institutions, it will overlap and will be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various areas and, in particular, in the matter of allocation and disbursal of grants, formulation of schemes for initial and in-service training of teachers and continuing education of teachers, laying down norms and standards for courses, physical and institutional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instruction assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes, taking steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education, inspection of technical institutions, withholding or discontinuing grants in respect of courses and taking such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council, declaring technical institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants, the constitution of the Council and its Executive Committee and the Regional Committees to carry out the functions under the Central Act, the compliance by the Council of the directions issued by the Central Government on questions of policy etc. which matters are covered by the Central Act. What is further, the primary object of the Central Act, as discussed earlier, is to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view, among others, to plan and coordinate the development of technical education system throughout the country and to promote the qualitative improvement of such education and to regulate and properly maintain the norms and standards in the technical education system which is a subject within the exclusive legislative field of the Central Government as is clear from Entry 66 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule. All the other provisions of the Act have been made in furtherance of the said objecti27. All the other provisions of the Act have been made in furtherance of the said objecti27. The provisions of the State Act enumerated above show that if it is made applicable to the technical institutions, it will overlap and will be in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various areas and, in particular, in the matter of allocation and disbursal of grants, formulation of schemes for initial and in-service training of teachers and continuing education of teachers, laying down norms and standards for courses, physical and institutional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instruction assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions and for introduction of new courses or programmes, taking steps to prevent commercialisation of technical education, inspection of technical institutions, withholding or discontinuing grants in respect of courses and taking such other steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance of the directions of the Council, declaring technical institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants, the constitution of the Council and its Executive Committee and the Regional Committees to carry out the functions under the Central Act, the compliance by the Council of the directions issued by the Central Government on questions of policy etc. which matters are covered by the Central Act. What is further, the primary object of the Central Act, as discussed earlier, is to provide for the establishment of an All India Council for Technical Education with a view, among others, to plan and coordinate the development of technical education system throughout the country and to promote the qualitative improvement of such education and to regulate and properly maintain the norms and standards in the technical education system which is a subject within the exclusive legislative field of the Central Government as is clear from Entry 66 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule. All the other provisions of the Act have been made in furtherance of the said objectives. They can also be deemed to have been enacted under Entry 25 of List III. This being so, the provisions of the State Act which impinge upon the provisions of the Central Act are void and, therefore, unenforceable. All the other provisions of the Act have been made in furtherance of the said objectives. They can also be deemed to have been enacted under Entry 25 of List III. This being so, the provisions of the State Act which impinge upon the provisions of the Central Act are void and, therefore, unenforceable. It is for these reasons that the appointment of the High Power Committee by the State Government to inspect the respondent-Trust was void as has been rightly held by the High Court. They can also be deemed to have been enacted under Entry 25 of List III. This being so, the provisions of the State Act which impinge upon the provisions of the Central Act are void and, therefore, unenforceable. It is for these reasons that the appointment of the High Power Committee by the State Government to inspect the respondent-Trust was void as has been rightly held by the High Court. 30. A comparison of the Central Act and the University Act will show that as far as the institutions imparting technical education are concerned, there is a conflict between and overlapping of the functions of the Council and the University. Under Section 10 of the Central Act, it is the Council which is entrusted with the power, particularly, to allocate and disburse grants, to evolve suitable performance appraisal systems incorporating norms and mechanisms for maintaining accountability of the technical institutions, laying down norms and standards for courses, curricula, staff pattern, staff qualifications, assessment and examinations, fixing norms and guidelines for charging tuition fee and other fees, granting approval for starting new technical institutions or introducing new courses or programmes, to lay down norms or granting autonomy to technical institutions, providing guidelines for admission of students, inspecting or causing to inspect colleges, for withholding or discontinuing of grants in respect of courses and programmes, declaring institutions at various levels and types fit to receive grants, advising the Commission constituted under the Act for declaring technical educational institutions as deemed universities, setting up of National Board of Accreditation to periodically conduct evaluation on the basis of guidelines and standards specified and to make recommendations to it or to the Council or the Commission or other bodies under the Act regarding recognition or de-recognition of the institution or the programme conducted by it. Thus, so far as these matters are concerned, in the case of the institutes imparting technical education, it is not the University Act and the University but it is the Central Act and the Council created under it which will have the jurisdiction. To that extent, after the coming into operation of the Central Act, the provisions of the University Act will be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges like the engineering colleges. As has been pointed out earlier, the Central Act has been enacted by Parliament under Entry 66 of List I to coordinate and determine the standards of technical institutions as well as under Entry 25 of List III. The provisions of the University Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges like the engineering colleges and the conditions for grant and continuation of such affiliation by the University shall, however, remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant and continuance of affiliation will have to be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the Council in respect of matters entrusted to it under Section 10 of the Central Act. 34. Shri Rao also contended that in practice, the prescription of higher standards by the State may not be in conflict with the standards laid down by the Council under the Central Act. To bring this home, he gave an illustration that where several institutions apply for starting technical institution and the State Government chooses the one which has the best equipment, infrastructure and resources, compared to others who merely fulfil the minimum requirements laid down under the Central Act, it cannot be said that the preference given to the institution by the State Government was contrary to or inconsistent with the Central statute. Yet another illustration he gave was where the Central Act prescribes minimum marks for admission to a technical institution or minimum qualifications for the teaching staff, but among the applicants, there are enough number of students or teachers with higher marks or qualifications, respectively, than the minimum prescribed to compete for the limited number of seats. In such cases, when a technical institution selects those with more than minimum marks or qualifications, it cannot be said that there is a non-compliance with the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, when a technical institution selects those with more than minimum marks or qualifications, it cannot be said that there is a non-compliance with the provisions of the Central Act. It is true that, in practice, it may happen that institutions with higher resources and students and teachers with higher marks and qualifications, respectively, than are prescribed apply and compete for the places, seats or vacancies as the case may be. However, it is equally true that when the vacancies are available for institutions or students or teachers as the case may be, the applicants cannot be denied the same on the ground that they do not fulfil the higher requirements laid down under the State Act, if they are qualified under the Central Act. Similarly, the institutions cannot be de-recognised or disaffiliated on the ground that they do not fulfil the higher requirements under the State Act although they fulfil the requirements under the Central Act. So also, when the power to recognise or de-recognise an institution is given to a body created under the Central Act, it alone can exercise the power and on terms and conditions laid down in the Central Act. It will not be open for the body created under the State Act to exercise such power much less on terms and conditions which are inconsistent with or repugnant to those which are laid down under the Central Act. 41. What emerges from the above discussion is as follows: (i) The expression 'coordination' used in Entry 66 of the Union List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution does not merely mean evaluation. It means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform pattern for a concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore, includes action not only for removal of disparities in standards but also for preventing the occurrence of such disparities. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make 'coordination' either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. It would, therefore, also include power to do all things which are necessary to prevent what would make 'coordination' either impossible or difficult. This power is absolute and unconditional and in the absence of any valid compelling reasons, it must be given its full effect according to its plain and express intention. (ii) To the extent that the State legislation is in conflict with the Central legislation though the former is purported to have been made under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List but in effect encroaches upon legislation including subordinate legislation made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the Union List, it would be void and inoperative. (iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations, unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions of the main part of clause (2) of Article 254, the State legislation being repugnant to the Central legislation, the same would be inoperative. (iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66 of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will have to be determined by the examination of the two laws and will depend upon the facts of each case. (v) When there are more applicants than the available situations/seats, the State authority is not prevented from laying down higher standards or qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or the Central authority to short-list the applicants. When the State authority does so, it does not encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a law which is repugnant to the Central law. (vi) However, when the situations/seats are available and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to its standards or qualifications, as the case may be, although the applicant satisfies the standards or qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities act illegally.'' 33. So also when the State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the standards or requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the Central authority, the State authorities act illegally.'' 33. Although, in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others (supra), the observations were made in context of AICTE, the same would squarely apply to the present case also as the powers of the Pharmacy Council are pari materia the same under which the AICTE acts. Even otherwise by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, the laws made by the Parliament will have supremacy over the laws made by the State Government to the extent that they are repugnant to the Central Act. Although, the said repugnancy does not arise in the present case insofar as it relates to prescribing the standards required by the institutions, in view of the law as explained in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others (supra), the requirements for approval as specified by the Pharmacy Council shall have supremacy over the requirement as specified by the Board in terms of the 2000 Regulations. Thus, to that extent, the inescapable conclusion is that once the approval is granted by the PCI, the affiliation is to be granted by the Board unless the Board, in particular cases, moves an application for withdrawal of the approval by invoking the powers under Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act, which admittedly has not been done. 34. Thus, to that extent, the inescapable conclusion is that once the approval is granted by the PCI, the affiliation is to be granted by the Board unless the Board, in particular cases, moves an application for withdrawal of the approval by invoking the powers under Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act, which admittedly has not been done. 34. To further clarify, as the issue is recurring one, to reconcile the two statutes i.e. The Pharmacy Act and the Regulations framed thereunder as well as The Uttar Pradesh Pravidhik Shiksha Adhiniyan, 1962 and the Regulations framed thereunder in the light of the Entry No. 66 of List-I and Entry No. 25 of List-III, which clearly provides that the power to legislate flowing from Entry No. 25 of List-III is subject to the provisions of Entries No. 63, 64, 65 and 66 of the List-I. It is held that the powers vested with the State Government by virtue of the 1962 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, specifically the power conferred by Section 13(iv) and Section 13(v), the powers of the Board under Regulation 14 (c), Regulation 14(d), Regulation 14(e) and Regulation 14(g) shall give way to the powers conferred on the PCI by virtue of the Pharmacy Act and the Educational Regulation, 2020. The other powers conferred upon the Board by virtue of Regulation 14 shall only be used by the Board in future for collecting material to invoke the powers of the PCI under Section 13 of the Pharmacy Act seeking revocation of the affiliation granted to the particular Institution that too based upon cogent materials. To further clarify that in the future, the Board will have no powers in terms of the 1962 Act or the Regulations framed thereunder and referred to above, in respect of raising any objections pertaining to accommodation, staffs, museum, library and equipment, which are within the domain of the powers exercised by the Pharmacy Council of India and duly regulated by virtue of the 2020 Regulations. 35. 35. The action of the Board as challenged insofar as it relates to schedules fixed for councelling is clearly bad in law as not only the State Government and the Board acted in an arbitrarily and illegal manner in passing an order refusing affiliation on no ground, which is evident from the order, they have also violated the schedule and dates fixed by Supreme Court of India in its order dated 6.9.2023 as quoted herein above and have started the counselling process. 36. Although, it is reasonably well-settled that once the counselling process starts, the judicial Courts would be loath to interfere with the same, however, in the present case, the manner in which various institutions have been denied the benefit of affiliation by the State Government without any material whatsoever despite there being an approval in their favour in almost all the cases and the fact that the said institutions continued to impart education and were granted affiliation for the academic year 2022-23 after approval for the said session in respect of the some of the colleges. The non-following of the schedule set by the Supreme Court in its order dated 6.9.2023 and the haste shown by the Board in initiating the counselling process without even waiting for the expiry of the dates as fixed by the Supreme Court has clearly resulted an anomalous situation wherein several institutions, which may get an approval before the date fixed by the Supreme Court by the PCI would be deprived of participating in the counselling process. The net effect of the decision taken by the State Government for initiating the counselling process before the expiry of the date fixed by the Supreme Court is clearly arbitrary and also detrimental to the cause of promoting the education in Pharmacy, which has the effect of defeating the very purpose of the Act, forces this Court to intervene in the matter. Thus, finding the action of the State and the Board to be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in terms of the dates, the only recourse left is to quash the counselling process initiated vide decision dated 16.9.2023 w.e.f. 25.9.2023 with directions to the Board and State Government to comply the guidelines fixed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 6.9.2023 and to grant the affiliation to the institutions, which have fulfilled the criteria fixed by the PCI and have obtained approval unless State Government, on the basis of the cogent material, approaches before the Pharmacy Council of India for revoking the approval in terms of Section 13 of the PCI. 37. The writ petitions are disposed off in above terms. 38. Order dated 25.9.2023 taken by the Board refusing affiliation, merits rejection on all counts and accordingly quashed. 39. In view of the fact that this Court has quashed the counselling schedule initiated by the Board vide order dated 16.9.2023, which was challenged in Writ - C No. 8389 of 2023, the natural consequences is that the said benefit shall enure to the benefit of all the institutions, which are approved by the PCI, irrespective of whether they have challenged the same or not. 40. Learned counsel for the Board and learned Standing Counsel are directed to communicate the decision to the Board not to go ahead the counselling which stands quashed in terms of this judgment.