JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. On 26.06.2023, the respondent-State notified a policy concerning running of Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course through private training institutes. Following decisions taken by the State were notified in this policy: “(i) No new Private Institution will be allowed to run Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. (ii) Seats of Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in the already running Private Institutions will be restricted to 40 Seats + 05 (12%) seats for in service Departmental candidates from the academic session of 2023-25. (iii) Private Veterinary Pharmacist Training Institutes will not change the fee structure compared to academic session 2022-24. Private Institutes shall display the fee structure on the notice board at all times and on the prospectus. (iv) Entry level qualification of 10+2 Medical (Physics, Chemistry & Biology) will be made compulsory and admission will be based on merit with minimum 55% qualifying marks in 10+2 in the Medical Examination. The Recruitment and Promotion Rules of post will also be suitably amended as far as qualification is concerned. It is, however, made clear that the candidates who have Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course OR are undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist Training before the notification of this Policy shall also be eligible to apply for the post of Veterinary Pharmacist or its equivalent as notified by the Animal Husbandry Department. (iv) Private Training Institutes shall be inspected on quarterly basis by the H.P. State Veterinary Council or an officer nominated by it in association with the Director, Animal Husbandry, who will not be below the rank of Deputy Director (AH/B). In case of short comings allotted (40) seats may be reduced or permission may be withdrawn by the HP State Para-Veterinary Council as the case may be after giving due opportunity of being heard to the Inspected Institute. (v) Candidates undergoing Veterinary Pharmacist Training shall undergo minimum six months of mandatory practical training as provided in the approved syllabus for the purpose. The training will be undertaken in a Government Animal Husbandry Departmental Hospital/Farm. A nominal fee, to be decided by H.P. State Para-Veterinary Council, will be charged from trainees, which will be deposited in Pashu Rogi Kalyan Samitis, constituted at the District level.” Petitioner, a private training institute running Veterinary Pharmacist Course, has challenged decision number (ii) whereby seats of Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in the already running private institutions have been restricted to 45 in all. The prayer clause of the petition is as under: “(a) To issue a writ of certiorari to quash the notification dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P-15) pursuant to which the petitioner Institute has been permitted to ill 40+5 seats in veterinary pharmacists course for the Session 2023-25 batch 2023-2025 in relation to veterinary pharmacists 2 years Diploma Course. (b) To issue writ or order directing the respondent to allow the petitioner Institute to fill 100 seats for the academic year 2023-2025 in relation to Veterinary Pharmacists 2 years Diploma......” 2. Facts about commencement of Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in the petitioner institute and its permitted student strength: (i) Sessions 2017-2019, 2018-2020, 2019-2021. (i)(a) The petitioner set up an institute and applied to the government to run Veterinary Pharmacist two years training course for Session 2017-2019. It also sought issuance of mandatorily required Essentiality Certificate to impart such training course for the years 2017-2019. The State did not respond. Hence the petitioner instituted CWP No. 1591 of 2017. This petition was disposed of on 02.05.2018 with direction to the State to conduct inspection of the petitioner institute in accordance with law and thereafter to take appropriate decision. The operative portion of the judgment goes as under: “4. In view of above, as mutually agreed, this petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent shall provide to the petitioner-society the list of equipments and other requirements within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter after some reasonable time, conduct inspection of the petitioner-Society, in accordance with law, at the expenses of the petitioner-Society. Post such inspection of the petitioner-Society, respondents/competent authority shall take appropriate decision in this regard within a period of one month from the date of inspection of the Institution of the petitioner-Society. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and in case petitioner-Society is not satisfied with the order passed by the respondents, then it will be open for the petitioner-Society to approach appropriate forum/Court of law for redressal of its grievance including issues raised by way of this petition. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” (i)(b) In compliance to the judgment, petitioner’s institute was inspected. The inspection committee in its report, dated 10.07.2018 found availability of required facilities for 100 students. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” (i)(b) In compliance to the judgment, petitioner’s institute was inspected. The inspection committee in its report, dated 10.07.2018 found availability of required facilities for 100 students. (i)(c) CWP No. 2206 of 2018 was instituted by the petitioner seeking direction to the State to act upon the recommendations of the inspection committee and to grant Essentiality Certificate to it for session 2018-2020. The respondent-State opposed the petition. Its defence was that petitioner cannot be permitted to run this course as “adequate number of seats were already available in the State for this course and there was no further scope of employment.” The writ petition was allowed by the Court on 20.11.2018. The State was directed to issue Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner. Relevant paras from the judgment are as under: “5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and on perusal of the record are of the view that the plea taken by the respondents is totally untenable. The State is under no obligation to provide public employment to the students to be admitted by the petitioner institute. The Essentiality Certificate to be issued by the State can always incorporate a condition expressly that each student to be admitted by the petitioner institute shall be informed in writing that the admission in the petitioner institute shall not be a valid ground to seek employment as a matter of right. 6. Otherwise also, assuming that there will be no public employment available in the State of Himachal Pradesh to the candidates who will pass out from the petitioner institute in the year 2020, it does not mean that they should not be admitted to the course, for such qualified candidates may seek employment outside the State of Himachal Pradesh or may join private employment/private practice etc. None of the Educational/Professional/ Technical Courses in the country are run on the premise that there shall be a guarantee of public employment to qualified candidates. Similar principle will apply in the instant case also. 7. Since the petitioner institute admittedly possesses the requisite faculty, infrastructure and laboratory facilities alongwith Hospital-cum-A.I. facility, Animal Shed and animals for training of 100 students, we see no reason as to why it should not be given the Essentiality Certificate for granting admission for the session 2018-2020. Similar principle will apply in the instant case also. 7. Since the petitioner institute admittedly possesses the requisite faculty, infrastructure and laboratory facilities alongwith Hospital-cum-A.I. facility, Animal Shed and animals for training of 100 students, we see no reason as to why it should not be given the Essentiality Certificate for granting admission for the session 2018-2020. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The action of the respondents is set aside and the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed to issue Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner within ten days, subject to the condition, as may be imposed and as illustrated above. Respondent No. 5 shall grant affiliation within one week thereafter and the petitioner shall be permitted to admit the students in a transparent manner, strictly in order of merit in the presence of an Observer to be appointed by Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishav Vidyalya at the expense of the petitioner within another week thereafter.” (i)(d) The Hon’ble Apex Court declined to interfere with the above judgment and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8066 of 2019 titled State of H.P. and Others vs. Thakur College of Education and Others instituted by the State was dismissed on 01.04.2019. Consequently, the State issued Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner on 04.04.2019 for 100 seats for imparting 2 years Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course for academic session 2019-2021. Out of 100 seats, 12% seats were to be filled up from amongst class IV government employees, 78% seats on competitive basis on the merit of 10+2 examination and the remaining 10% management quota seats were to be filled up from amongst the candidates having obtained at least 60% marks in 10+2 examination. (ii) Session 2020-2022 (ii)(a) Petitioner instituted CWP No. 2044 of 2020 for renewal of Essentiality Certificate for commencing session 2020-2022 for its two years Veterinary Pharmacist Course. While disposing of this writ petition, the Court in its judgment dated 13.07.2020 observed that the Essentiality Certificate had been originally issued to the petitioner institute as a fall-out of the decision of the earlier writ petition (CWP No. 2206 of 2018). On that basis, the respondents were directed to consider the inspection report already submitted for renewal of the Essentiality Certificate. The directions in the decision dated 13.07.2020 run as under: “5. On that basis, the respondents were directed to consider the inspection report already submitted for renewal of the Essentiality Certificate. The directions in the decision dated 13.07.2020 run as under: “5. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petition have been complied with by the respondents and the petitioner-Institute has been inspected by the Competent Authority for the purpose of grant of Essentiality Certificate. Thereafter the Essentiality Certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner-Institute on the basis of the inspection report submitted in its favour. When directions issued by this Court have been complied with by the respondents by inspecting the petitioner-Institute for the purpose of issuance of Essentiality Certificate, as per law, then the only option now available with the respondents is to consider the case of the petitioner-Institute for issuance of renewal of Essentiality Certificate on the basis of inspection report already submitted.” (ii)(b) The petitioner has further pleaded that the Essentiality Certificate though was renewed in its favour, however, the seats were reduced from 100 to 50. This reduction of seats, was agitated by the petitioner in CWP No. 2798 of 2020. On 11.08.2020, the Court granted interim order as under: “CMP No. 7176 of 2020 Notice/reply in the aforesaid terms. The interim relief is granted, however, the students, beyond 50 and upto 100, who, strived, for, admissions in the relevant courses, in the petitioners’ institutes, shall be provisionally intaken, and, theirs’ pursuing the relevant courses, in the petitioners’ institutes, shall be subject to the outcome of the extant writ petition. Modification, alteration, vacation on motion.” Thus, the admission of students beyond 50 and upto 100 was made provisional and subject to outcome of the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of on 23.11.2020 as having become redundant in view of the State acceding to petitioner’s request of enhancement of seats to 100. (iii) Session 2021-2023 (iii)(a) The petitioner again applied for renewal of Essentiality Certificate for starting the Veterinary Pharmacist Course-batch 2021-2023. The inspection committee in its report dated 04.01.2022 found availability of requisite facilities and recommended for permitting the petitioner to continue with 100 seats for sessions 2020-2022 and 2021-2023. (iii)(b) CWP No. 380 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner for quashing respondents’ decision of imposing restriction of filling up 12% seats from class IV employees of the Animal Husbandry Department. (iii)(b) CWP No. 380 of 2022 was filed by the petitioner for quashing respondents’ decision of imposing restriction of filling up 12% seats from class IV employees of the Animal Husbandry Department. By virtue of an interim order passed on 21.01.2022, the petitioner was permitted to fill up 12% quota reserved for class IV employees from eligible students in accordance with rules, which may remain unfilled for want of sponsorship from the State. The interim order was subject to final outcome of the writ petition and was not to create any equity either in favour of the petitioner or the students admitted on the strength of interim order. (iv) Present dispute The respondent-State issued a Notification on 26.06.2023 (Annexure P-15) conveying certain policy decisions taken by it, which were made applicable to the entire State. In this notification, it was inter-alia decided that: No new private institutions will be allowed to run Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course. The seats of Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in the already running private institutions will be restricted to 40+05 (12%) seats for in-service departmental candidates from academic session 2023-2025. The entry level qualification for admission to the course shall be 10+2 Medical (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) and admission will be based on merit with minimum 55% qualifying marks in 10+2 in the medical examination. From the body of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has grievances against respondent’s decision of reducing the seats in the Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course from 100 to 45 and making 10+2 medical with 55% marks as the entry level qualification. However, the petition restricts its prayer only against the respondents’ decision of restricting the seats in the course. We, therefore, proceed to examine this claim as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Submissions: Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-Institute contended that the State has no power to restrict the admission of students in the Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course being run by the petitioner institute. The power is solely exercisable by Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council. The impugned restriction placed by the State in the Notification dated 26.06.2023 w.r.t. number of students that can be admitted in the existing private institutes is beyond the power vested in the State. The power is solely exercisable by Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council. The impugned restriction placed by the State in the Notification dated 26.06.2023 w.r.t. number of students that can be admitted in the existing private institutes is beyond the power vested in the State. It was also highlighted that the restriction on the admission of students has been placed by the State only on ground of limited number of employment opportunities available for Veterinary Pharmacists in the Government/Private Sector. It was submitted that variety of courses are being run in the State; Nowhere the institutes imparting the training give guarantees of employment to the students; Yet the institutes continue to run. Therefore, restriction of seats in Veterinary Pharmacist Course to 50 from earlier existing 100, on ground of alleged non-availability of employment opportunities to the trained students is not justified. It was also emphasized that this ground taken earlier by the State for denying the Essentiality Certificate to the petitioner institute for the session 2017-2019, was turned down by the Court in CWP No. 2206 of 2018, decided on 20.11.2018. The State cannot again take shelter of the same ground for placing restriction on number of students to be admitted in the private institutes. In support of above contentions, reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, dated 15.09.2022, rendered in Pharmacy Council of India vs. Rajeev College of Pharmacy and Others, (2023) 3 SCC 502 . Prayer was made for quashing the Notification dated 26.06.2023 to the extent it permitted the petitioner to fill up only 40+5 seats in Veterinary Pharmacist Course for the session 2023-2025 with further prayer to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to fill up 100 seats for the academic year 2023-2025. 4. Consideration: (i) Whether the impugned Notification could have been issued by the State or by the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council is the first question raised by the petitioner. (i)(a) For answering the question, reference to relevant provision of the governing statute i.e. The Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council Act 2010 (hereinafter called the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder is necessary. The preamble of the Act reads that it is for the establishment of Para-Veterinary Council in the State of the Himachal Pradesh and to regulate the practice by Para-veterinarians and Para-Veterinary institutions. The preamble of the Act reads that it is for the establishment of Para-Veterinary Council in the State of the Himachal Pradesh and to regulate the practice by Para-veterinarians and Para-Veterinary institutions. Section 2(a) of the Act defines ‘approved institution’ as under: “2(a) “approved institution” means a State Level Veterinary Hospital, Disease Investigation Laboratories, Veterinary Polyclinic, Veterinary Hospital, Veterinary Dispensary, Livestock and Poultry Farms or other such institution recognized by a University as an institution in which a person may undergo the training, if any, required by his course of study before the award of any Para-Veterinary qualification to him.” Section 2(f) defines ‘institution’ as follows: “2(f) “Institution” means any institution, within or outside India, which grants degrees, diplomas, certificates or licence in Para-Veterinary.” As per Section 2(b), the word ‘Council means’: “2(b) “Council” means Para-Veterinary Council established under section 3 of this Act.” Section 3 provides for establishment of a Para-Veterinary Council by the State Government. The Council is a body corporate by the name of The Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council. Section 18 lays down following powers and functions of the Council: “18. Powers and functions of the Council: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Council shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the powers and functions of the Council shall be: (a) to maintain the State Register of Para-Veterinary practitioners. (b) to hear and decide appeals from the decision of the registrar in such manner, as may be prescribed by regulations. (c) to prescribe by regulations a code of ethics for regulating the professional conduct of registered Para-Veterinary practitioners. (d) to reprimand a registered Para-Veterinary practitioner, or to suspend or remove the name from the State Registrar, or to take such other disciplinary action against him, as may, in the opinion of the Council, be necessary or expedient. (e) to permit any member to be absent from three consecutive meetings of the Council. (f) to promote innovations, research and development in establishment of new Para-Veterinary subjects. (g) to formulate schemes for promoting Para-Veterinary education. (h) to promote an effective link between Para-Veterinary Education, Veterinary Education and Veterinary System of Medicine and to promote research and development in these subjects. (f) to promote innovations, research and development in establishment of new Para-Veterinary subjects. (g) to formulate schemes for promoting Para-Veterinary education. (h) to promote an effective link between Para-Veterinary Education, Veterinary Education and Veterinary System of Medicine and to promote research and development in these subjects. (i) to lay down norms and standards for courses, curricula, physical and instructional facilities, staff pattern, staff qualifications, quality instructions, assessment, examination and continuing veterinary education. (j) to fix norms and guidelines for charging tuition and other fees. (k) to advise the State Government in respect of grant of charter to any Para-Veterinary body or institution in the field of veterinary education. (l) to provide guidelines for admission of student of Para-Veterinary institution and Universities imparting Para-Veterinary education. (m) to inspect or cause to be inspected any Para-Veterinary institution. (n) to constitute or authorize a Board for conducting the examination and to maintain uniformity of standard. (o) to register Para-Veterinary establishments. (p) to prescribe minimum standards for the establishment of Para-Veterinary establishments. (q) to perform such other functions, as may be prescribed. (r) to conduct the election of members under item (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 4.” In terms of Section 19 of the Act, no person shall establish a Para-Veterinary Institution and no Para-Veterinary Institution shall open a new or higher course of study or training; increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training except with the previous permission of the State Government. For the purpose of obtaining permission of the State Government, every person or Para-Veterinary Institution shall submit a scheme to the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council. The scheme has to be in such form as may be prescribed. The scheme so submitted by a person/Para-Veterinary Institution is to be looked into by the Council and then to be submitted alongwith its recommendations to the State Government. After considering the scheme, the recommendations of the Council and also keeping in view the other relevant factors, the State Government may approve or disapprove the scheme. The Section goes as under: “19. Permission for establishment of new Para-Veterinary institution: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act: (a) no person shall establish a Para -veterinary institution. After considering the scheme, the recommendations of the Council and also keeping in view the other relevant factors, the State Government may approve or disapprove the scheme. The Section goes as under: “19. Permission for establishment of new Para-Veterinary institution: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act: (a) no person shall establish a Para -veterinary institution. (b) no Para-Veterinary institution shall: (i) open a new or higher course of study or training which would enable a student of such course or training to qualify himself for the award of any recognized Paraveterinary qualification. (ii) increase its admission capacity in any course of study or training, except with the previous permission of the State Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the expression “person” includes any University or a Trust but does not include the State Government. (2) Every person or Para-Veterinary institution shall, for the purpose of obtaining permission under sub-section (1), submit to the Council a scheme in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3). (3) The scheme referred to in sub-section (2) shall be in such form, containing such particulars, preferred in such manner and accompanied with such fee, as may be prescribed. (4) On receipt of a scheme by the Council under sub-section (2), the Council may obtain such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or the Para-Veterinary institution concerned and thereafter, it may: (a) if the scheme is defective and does not contain any necessary particulars, give a reasonable opportunity to the person or institution concerned for making a written representation and it shall be open to such person or Para-Veterinary institution to rectify the defects, if any, specified by the Council. (b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (8), and submit the scheme together with its recommendation thereon to the State Government. (b) consider the scheme, having regard to the factors referred to in sub-section (8), and submit the scheme together with its recommendation thereon to the State Government. (5) The State Government may, after considering the scheme and the recommendations of the Council under sub-section (4) and after obtaining, where necessary, such other particulars as may be considered necessary by it from the person or institution concerned, and having regard to the factor referred to in sub- section (1), either approve with such conditions, if any, as it may consider necessary or disapprove the scheme and any such approval shall be a permission under sub-section (1): Provided that no scheme shall be disapproved by the State Government, except after giving the person or institution concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard: Provided further that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent any person or Para-Veterinary institution whose scheme has not been approved by the State Government to submit a fresh scheme and the provisions of this section shall apply to such scheme as if such scheme has been submitted for the first time under sub-section (2). (6) Where, within a period of one year from the date of submission of the scheme to the Council under sub-section (2), no order passed by the State Government has been communicated to the person or institution submitting the scheme, such scheme shall be deemed to have been approved by the State Government in the form in which it had been submitted to the Council and accordingly, the permission of the State Government required under sub-section (1) shall also be deemed to have been granted. (7) In computing the time limit specified in sub-section (6), the time taken by the person or institution concerned submitting the scheme in furnishing any particular called for by the Council, or State Government, shall be excluded. (8) The Council, while making its recommendations under clause (b) of sub-section (4) and the State Government while passing an order, either approving or disapproving the scheme under sub-section (5), shall have due regard to the following factors, namely: (a) whether the proposed Para-Veterinary institution or the existing Para-Veterinary institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training, shall be in aposition to offer the minimum standards of Para-Veterinary education as prescribed by the Council under section 26 of this Act. (b) whether the person seeking to establish a Para-Veterinary institution or the existing Para-Veterinary institution seeking to open a new or higher course of study or training or to increase its admission capacity has adequate financial resources. (c) whether necessary facilities in respect of staff, equipment, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the Para-Veterinary institution or conducting the new course of study or training or accommodating the increased admission capacity have been provided or would be provided within the time limit specified in the scheme. (d) whether adequate veterinary hospital facilities, having regard to the number of students likely to attend such Para-Veterinary institution or course of study or training or as a result of the increased admission capacity, have been provided or shall be provided within the time-limit specified in the scheme. (e) whether any arrangement has been made or programme drawn to impart proper training to students likely to attend such Para-Veterinary institution or course of study or training by persons having the recognized Para-Veterinary qualifications. (f) the requirement of manpower in the field of practice of Veterinary medicine; and (g) any other factors as may be prescribed. (9) Where the State Government passes an order either approving or disapproving a scheme under this section a copy of the order shall be communicated to the persons or Para-Veterinary institution concerned.” (i)(b) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is only the Para-Veterinary Council which is empowered to issue the directions for restricting the students’ intake in the institutes and not the State. We are afraid, no such absolute mandate to Para-Veterinary Council is discernable from the Act. Rather, the scheme of the Act is such that the Para-Veterinary Council is to make its recommendations to the State on the scheme submitted by the person/Para-Veterinary institutions. The State Government after considering the same having regard to other relevant factors may approve or disapprove the recommendations of Para-Veterinary Council. Apart from provisions of the Act extracted earlier, it will also be apposite to refer to the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council Rules 2011, framed in exercise of powers under Section 53 of the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council Act 2010. Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules, being relevant, is extracted hereinafter: “3. Apart from provisions of the Act extracted earlier, it will also be apposite to refer to the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council Rules 2011, framed in exercise of powers under Section 53 of the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council Act 2010. Rule 3 of the 2011 Rules, being relevant, is extracted hereinafter: “3. Terms and conditions before issue of a Essentiality Certificate by the State Government regarding desirability and feasibility to, establish Para-Veterinary institution: (1) Every person or Para-Veterinary institution shall for the purpose of obtaining permission under section 19 submit to the council a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act and these rules. (2) Every person or Para-Veterinary institution before submitting a scheme under sub- rule (1) shall apply to the Government to obtain Essentiality Certificate accompanied by a non-refundable processing fee to the tune of Rupees Ten Thousand in the shape of demand draft in favour of Director Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh Payable at any bank at SHIMLA. (3) The Essentiality Certificate shall only be issued by the State Government in case such person or Para-Veterinary institution fulfills the following conditions, namely:- (i) The Para-Veterinary institution shall own land either by in-heritance, purchase or lease from the Government and construct building at its own Cost within a period of one year. However the Course may be started on rental premises conforming to other norms for the Para-Veterinary institutions. (ii) no financial assistance/grant shall be given to the institution by: the State Government. (iii) the institution shall get affiliation from the Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Palampur District Kangra. (iv) the institution shall get recognition from the Council. (v) the institution shall be established in accordance with the regulations and guidelines laid down by the Council. (vi) the reservation of seats shall be as per State Government instructions issued from time to time. (vii) a minimum 70% staff of the institution shall be employed from amongst the Himachali Bona-fide candidates and in case it is not feasible to employ the staff from amongst the Himachali Bonafide candidates, the prior approval of the State Government shall have to be obtained. (viii) all Class-lll and IV staff of the institution shall be recruited from amongst the Himachali Bona-fide candidates. (viii) all Class-lll and IV staff of the institution shall be recruited from amongst the Himachali Bona-fide candidates. (ix) after the recognition of the institution, its inspection shall be conducted periodically after three years by the Council; provided in the case of complaint, such inspections may be conducted at any time; (x) the admissions for all seats shall be regulated by the Council. (xi) the fee structure for each institution shall be such as may be approved by the State Government from time to time. (xii) admission of the students shall be made only after the fulfillment of all the terms and conditions laid down in this rule. (xiii) atleast 25% of the seats shall be reserved to the candidates belonging to Himachal Pradesh.” Under Rule 3(1) every person or Para-Veterinary institution shall for the purpose of obtaining permission under section 19 is required to submit to the Council a scheme in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the 2011 Rules. In terms of Rule 3(2), every person or Para-Veterinary institution before submitting a scheme under sub-rule (1) is obligated to apply to the Government to obtain Essentiality Certificate. The Essentiality Certificate shall be issued only by the State Government in case of fulfillment of conditions mentioned in Rule 3(3). Rule 3(3), inter-alia, provides that the admission for all seats shall be regulated by the Council. That admission shall be made only after fulfillment of all the terms and conditions laid down under Rule 3. Petitioner’s contention that only the Para-Veterinary Council can issue the instructions with regard to permitted intake of the students in Para-Veterinary Institutes and that State has no power to issue such directions is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. (ii) Before proceeding further, the factual position culminating in the issuance of impugned direction restricting intake of students in Para-Veterinary Course in Para-Veterinary Institutes also needs to be noticed: (ii)(a) The Notification dated 26.06.2023 records the detailed report and the recommendations of Himachal Pradesh State Para-Veterinary Council which were made the basis for taking the decisions including the impugned decision of capping the intake of students in the Para-Veterinary institutes for session 2023-2025. The recommendations of Himachal Pradesh State Para-Veterinary Council as encapsulated in the Notification dated 26.06.2023 are reproduced hereinafter: “5. The recommendations of Himachal Pradesh State Para-Veterinary Council as encapsulated in the Notification dated 26.06.2023 are reproduced hereinafter: “5. Recommendations of H.P. State Para-Veterinary Council: HP State Para-Veterinary Council has submitted following report: (a) There is mushrooming of Private Institutions in the State offering Diploma Course in Veterinary Pharmacists which is not matching with the requirements in terms of employability. (b) The entry level educational qualification in these Institutions is 10+2 in any stream. However, in order to improve the quality of Veterinary Pharmacists being trained, the entry level qualification of 10+2 in science stream (Biology) must be made compulsory. The admissions should strictly be based on merit score with minimum 55 percent qualifying marks in 10+2, Medical ( Physics, Chemistry and Biology) as main subjects. (c) The compliance of Rules and Regulations pertaining to the running of the Pharmacist Training Institutes should be strictly enforced. The Institutes should be quarterly inspected by the Registrar of H.P. Para-Veterinary Council, who is an officer of Joint Director level in the Animal Husbandry Department or an officer nominated by it in association with the Director, Animal Husbandry, who is not below the rank of Deputy Director (AH/B). (d) The current and future job prospects for such trained Veterinary Pharmacists are bleak. There is almost negligible scope of jobs for Veterinary Pharmacists in private sector. The Government sector is apparently saturated with Veterinary Pharmacists. (e) There is already a huge abnormal ratio of Veterinary graduates and Veterinary Pharmacists, in the State Animal Husbandry Department of Himachal Pradesh which is unlike anywhere in the country. According to Veterinary Council of India, the Veterinary Pharmacists should preferably provide services under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian only. Hence the opening new Veterinary Pharmacist Training Institutes should be discouraged in future and capping on seats of presently running Institutes should be mandated. (f) All matters pertaining to admission and educations of Veterinary Pharmacists should be regulated only by the Para-Veterinary Council of the State as instances of granting seats to some Institutes/Universities by H.P. Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Commission have come to notice of the Council.” (ii)(b) A reading of above makes it evident that it was the Himachal Pradesh State Para-Veterinary Council, which reported that: (i) There is mushrooming growth of private institutions in the State offering diploma courses in the Veterinary Pharmacy. (ii) The number of Veterinary Pharmacists coming out from the institutions in the State does not match with the requirement in terms of employability. (iii) There is already a huge abnormal ratio of Veterinary Graduates and Veterinary Pharmacists in the State Animal Husbandry Department of Himachal Pradesh. The abnormal ratio is unlike anywhere else in the country. The Para-Veterinary Council, therefore, recommended that: (a) Veterinary Pharmacists should preferably provide services only under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian. (b) Opening new Veterinary Pharmacist Training Institutes should be discouraged in future. (c) There should be capping on seats on the already existing institutes. (ii)(c) Apart from the report and the recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh State Para-Veterinary Council, the respondent-State also took into consideration other relevant factors viz. (a) There being already 33 private institutes running Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in the State having capacity of 2415 seats per academic session; (b) Many more private institutes seeking permission from the State for running Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in their institutes; (c) Animal Husbandry Department having a network of 3493 Veterinary Institutions in the State providing Animal Health and Veterinary Aid Service to the livestock owners and farmers of the State; (d) There being already approximately 5000 unemployed trained Veterinary Pharmacists in the State. More than 2000 trained Veterinary Pharmacists would pass out in the year 2023; (e) Cadre strength of Veterinary Pharmacists in Animal Husbandry Department being only 2355. Employment opportunities for such large number of Para Veterinarians in the State are bleak; (f) There being limited scope of jobs for Veterinary Pharmacists in private sectors within and outside the State; (g) The Government sector being fully saturated with Veterinary Pharmacists. (ii)(d) Taking into consideration not only the report and the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh State Para-Veterinary Council, but also all attending factors, the respondent -State, inter-alia, decided to restrict the intake of the students for Veterinary Pharmacist Training Course in the already running private institutions to 40 + 05 seats [(12%) for in-service departmental candidates] for academic session 2023-2025. (ii)(e) Thus, in the instant case, it was the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council, which in its report had pointed out the abnormal ratio of Para-Veterinary Pharmacists vis-à-vis Para-Veterinary Graduates as compared to the rest of the country. The negligible scope of jobs in the private sector for the Veterinary Pharmacists within and outside the State was also pointed out. (ii)(e) Thus, in the instant case, it was the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council, which in its report had pointed out the abnormal ratio of Para-Veterinary Pharmacists vis-à-vis Para-Veterinary Graduates as compared to the rest of the country. The negligible scope of jobs in the private sector for the Veterinary Pharmacists within and outside the State was also pointed out. The fact that Government sector was already choked with Veterinary Pharmacists was also highlighted by the Council. The State also considered the relative data on the subject and on that basis arrived at the decision of curtailing the intake of students in the private institutions offering Veterinary Pharmacist Course to 50 seats for the session 2023-2025. The State as well as Para-Veterinary Council are in unison in this impugned decision. The State has approved & accepted the report & recommendations of the Council. The approval resulted in issuance of the notification dated 26.06.2023 inter-alia capping the admission of students at 50 seats in Para-Veterinary Course for batch 2023-2025. Though we have held that it is the State which has the mandate to issue such like directions off-course keeping in view the statute and the rules, but in the instant case, this argument is redundant as both, the State as well as the Council, have concurred in the impugned decision. (iii) Justifiability of impugned decision One additional ground urged by the petitioner for challenging the specific decision in the Notification dated 26.06.2023 pertaining to capping of admission seats for the session 2023-2025 is that the impugned decision has stemmed from an assumption of there being no employment opportunities for the Veterinary Pharmacists. It was contended that such an argument was raised by the State while opposing CWP No. 2206 of 2018 instituted by the petitioner. The ground put forth by the State was negatived by the Court in its decision rendered on 20.11.2018. The SLP against the judgment dated 20.11.2018 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The ground of there being negligible employment opportunities for the Veterinary Pharmacists having already been turned down, cannot be made the basis by the State for capping the admission seats for academic session 2023-2025. (iii)(a) We do not find any force in the assertion of the petitioner. The petitioner had set-up the institute of its own accord and desired Essentiality Certificate for starting Veterinary Pharmacist Course for session 2017-2019. (iii)(a) We do not find any force in the assertion of the petitioner. The petitioner had set-up the institute of its own accord and desired Essentiality Certificate for starting Veterinary Pharmacist Course for session 2017-2019. The Essentiality Certificate was denied by the respondents to the petitioner on the premise that adequate number of seats were already available in the State for the course and there was no further scope of employment for Veterinary Pharmacists. While rejecting this stand of the respondent-State, the Court in its judgment dated 20.11.2018 had inter-alia observed that the Para-Veterinary Council had already conducted the inspection of petitioner institute; In terms of the inspection report, the petitioner had the requisite faculty, infrastructure etc. for training of the students. On that basis, it was observed that Essentiality Certificate should be granted to the petitioner institute notwithstanding the ground urged by the State pertaining to unemployment of the students passing out from the institute. Also in the earlier writ petition, the recommendations of Para-Veterinary Council were in favour of the petitioner institute. Present scenario is altogether different. The present is not a case where petitioner has not been granted the Essentiality Certificate or the renewal thereof for the session 2023-2025. The point in issue is that for the session 2023-2025, the number of admission seats have been restricted to 40 + 5. The direction of the State for restricting the number of seats to 40 + 5 has been made applicable not just in case of the petitioner institute, but to all similar institutes set-up in the respondent-State and imparting Para-Veterinary Training Course. The impugned decision & direction of the State curtailing the number of admission of students to the Para-Veterinary Course is in turn based upon consideration of the report & recommendations of the Para-Veterinary Council. The impugned notified decision/direction falls within the framework of the Act & the Rules and has been taken as per prescribed procedure. (iii)(b) The reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner upon the decision in case Pharmacy Council of India’s case is misplaced. In the aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed a bunch of appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India against the judgments of certain High Courts which set aside the moratorium imposed upon starting new pharmacy colleges for 5 years. In the aforesaid decision, Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed a bunch of appeals filed by the Pharmacy Council of India against the judgments of certain High Courts which set aside the moratorium imposed upon starting new pharmacy colleges for 5 years. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that though there is a fundamental right to establish educational institutions, the same can be subject to reasonable restrictions, which are found necessary in the general public interest. A citizen cannot be deprived of the said right except in accordance with law. The requirement of law for the purpose of clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution of India can by no stretch of imagination be achieved by issuing a circular or a policy decision in terms of Article 162 of the Constitution or otherwise. Such a law, it is trite, must be one enacted by the legislature. In the facts of the case, the Apex Court found the issuance of impugned communications to be in the nature of executive instructions and, therefore, struck down the same. It would also be pertinent to notice that while dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court also observed 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. 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.” Petitioner cannot derive any assistance from this judgment in the facts of the present case. The Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council has the power and the authority under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to regulate the admission of students. The report and recommendations were made by the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council to the State inter-alia for restricting the admission of the students for academic session 2023-2025. The report & the recommendations were examined by the State after looking into the statistics and on that basis, the impugned decision was notified. The State has the statutory power to take the decision in question. Not only the decision has been taken by the State, but the same is based upon consideration of the report & recommendation of the Council made in that regard. The State has the statutory power to take the decision in question. Not only the decision has been taken by the State, but the same is based upon consideration of the report & recommendation of the Council made in that regard. The procedure prescribed under the Act & the Rules has been followed before taking the decision in form of a State Policy applicable not just to the petitioner’s institute, but has pan Himachal applicability. It would also be profitable to refer to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Registrar vs. Sangam Laxmi Bai Vidyapeeth and Others, (2019) 17 SCC 729 wherein a moratorium imposed by the State of Telangana was found to be valid since it was done to control mushrooming growth of educational institutions. The Court found that the Telangana Education Act 1982 empowered the State to issue such a direction. (iii)(c) The impugned decision of curtailing the admission of students in the session 2023-2025 is applicable not just to the petitioner institute, but to all private institutions imparting similar training in the respondent-State. The decision cannot be said to be mala-fide, unreasonable, arbitrary or unfair. In fact no such contentions were even advanced for the petitioner. (iii)(d) The impugned decision of restricting the admission of students in the Para-Veterinary course is a uniform policy decision taken by the respondent for the entire State. Merely because the petitioner has infrastructure and faculty for 100 seats, as alleged by it, is no ground to allow it to run Veterinary Pharmacist Course for 100 seats. No vested right is created in favour of the petitioner institute to run the Veterinary Pharmacist Course forever for 100 seats. It is for the Himachal Pradesh Para-Veterinary Council and the State to regulate the admission in the institutes in accordance with law. The respondents have supported their decision to curtail the admission of students in the Para-Veterinary Pharmacist Course on number of factors viz. large number of trainees coming out from the institutes; there being abnormal ratio of Veterinary graduates and Veterinary Pharmacists in the Animal Husbandry Department of State which is unlike anywhere else in the country; there being no employment opportunities to Para-Veterinary Pharmacists; the Government sector being already choked with Para-Veterinary Pharmacists; the private sector also being saturated with Para-Veterinary Pharmacists. The petitioner has neither disputed the statistics nor the reasons assigned by the respondents for taking the impugned decision. The petitioner has neither disputed the statistics nor the reasons assigned by the respondents for taking the impugned decision. It would also be appropriate to refer here a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court dated 10.11.2022, rendered in AIR 2022 SC 5681 (State of Uttarakhand vs. Nalanda College of Education and Others) wherein it was held that State Government was well within its right to recommend that it was not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need of 2500 teachers annually, approximately, 13000 students would be passing out every year. Therefore, the remaining students will remain unemployed. The need of new colleges looking to the requirement was held to be a relevant consideration. The decision not to recommend further recognition to the new B.Ed. Colleges was held justifiable. The relevant paras from the judgment are as under: “6. We have heard Shri Krishnam Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - the State of Uttarakhand and Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, by which the High Court has quashed and set aside the policy decision taken by the State of Uttarakhand, opining/deciding not to grant recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges and consequently recommending the NCTE to take an appropriate decision on the application submitted by respondent No. 1 to increase the seats of B.Ed. course. It appears that the State Government vide order/communication dated 16.07.2013 sent its opinion and informed the NCTE that as about 13000 students are passing B.Ed. course every year against the need of 2500 teachers and therefore most the students passing B.Ed. course would be unemployed, it is recommended not to grant any further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the said communication/policy decision terming the same as arbitrary. Therefore, the short question posed for consideration of this Court is, “whether the policy decision taken by the State 8 Government can be said to be arbitrary which calls for interference of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?” 7. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh (supra). An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of Vidharbha Sikshan Vyawasthapak Mahasangh (supra). Before this Court, the challenge was the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Government of Maharashtra refusing to grant permission to the member institutions of the original writ petitioner to hold the first year classes in Diploma in Education. In the case before this Court, a policy decision was taken by the State Government not to grant further recommendation to start new D.Ed. colleges, inter-alia, on the ground that in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts, a large number of applicants applied for starting new D.Ed. colleges from time to time. It was found that the number of the new D.Ed. colleges started in Nagpur and Bhandara Districts is proportionately much larger, about five times more than the estimated increased need of the two districts and therefore it was not desirable and feasible to permit the new D.Ed. colleges. It was the case of the State that to permit admission of 3000 students every year will result in a serious consequence of a large scale unemployment. The High Court dismissed the writ petition which has been confirmed by this Court by observing that the Government has taken the right decision 9 so as to save the young men from being exploited. This Court also negatived the contention on behalf of the management that the refusal to grant permission to hold D.Ed. classes will result in unemployment. This Court approved the stand on behalf of the State that if the permission is granted, there will be a large scale unemployment inasmuch as 3000 students will be admitted in the first year classes as against the requirement of 616 students. Therefore, this Court has approved the policy decision taken by the State not to grant further recognition to the new D.Ed. colleges as there was no requirement of the new D.Ed. colleges looking to the requirement of teachers. 8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has committed a serious error in holding that the decision not to recommend for the new B.Ed. colleges can be said to be arbitrary. colleges as there was no requirement of the new D.Ed. colleges looking to the requirement of teachers. 8. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision, the High Court has committed a serious error in holding that the decision not to recommend for the new B.Ed. colleges can be said to be arbitrary. At this stage, it is required to be noted that under the provisions of the NCTE Regulations, the State is well within its right to make suitable recommendations. As per Rule 7(5) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, on receipt of the communication from the office of the Regional Committee to the State, the State Government is required to send its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee. It further provides that in case the State Government is not in favour of the recommendation, it shall provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof 10 with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while disposing of the application. Therefore, when the State Government is required to provide detailed reasons against grant of recognition with necessary statistics, it includes the need and/or requirement. Therefore, the State Government was well within its right to recommend and/or opine that the State Government is not in favour of granting further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges as against the need of annually 2500 teachers approximately 13000 students would be passing out every year, therefore, for the remaining students, there will be unemployment. The aforesaid decision cannot be said to be arbitrary as observed and held by the High Court. The need of the new colleges looking to the requirement can be said to be a relevant consideration and a decision not to recommend further recognition to the new B.Ed. colleges on the need basis cannot be said to be arbitrary. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.” (iii)(e) The Apex Court has also cautioned the Courts to 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 experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and departments controlling them. That it will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from actual realities and gross root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. [Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Others, 1984 (4) SCC 27 ] In Dr. Basavaiah vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 372 it was reiterated that Courts do not ordinarily interfere with decision of expert bodies in the field of education. The petitioner has not made out a case that the impugned policy decision of the State uniformly made applicable to the Para-Veterinary Course in all the institutes, is unreasonable, arbitrary and could not have been taken. (iv) Conclusion The upshot of above discussion is that: (iv)(a) The impugned decision of the State in capping the intake of students in the Para-Veterinary Course for session 2023-2025 as contained in the Notification dated 26.06.2023, is within the statutory competence mandated to the State under the H.P. Para-Veterinary Council Act 2010 and the H.P. Para-Veterinary Council Rules 2011. The procedure prescribed under the Act & the Rules framed thereunder has been followed for taking the decision. (iv)(b) Impugned decision of the State in capping the intake of students in the Para-Veterinary Pharmacist Course for session 2023-2025 as conveyed in the Notification dated 26.06.2023 is based upon a thorough consideration of the corresponding report & recommendations made in that regard by the H.P. Para-Veterinary Council. (iv)(c) The Notification dated 26.06.2023 gives out sound justification for taking the impugned decision/direction. The factual basis of the assigned reasons has otherwise not even been questioned by the petitioner. 5. For all the foregoing reasons, no case for interference in the impugned policy decision is made out. We find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.