ORDER : SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. 1.1 An affidavit is sought to be filed in the Court bringing on record certain facts and events pertaining to the decision of the Apex Court, wherein extensions have been granted for completion of the admission process for the Academic Session 2025-2026, which is unsupported by an application seeking leave of the Court to file such an affidavit bringing on record the additional facts, which were placed before the learned single Judge. The said affidavit filed today in the Court, is taken on record. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner institution is an educational institution, which has been granted affiliation by the Gujarat Technological University for starting a new college for imparting D.Pharm course. For commencement of the said course, necessary approvals/recognition has been granted by the Pharmacy Council of India vide its decision dated 09.10.2025 with the intake of 60 students for the Academic Session 2025-2026. 3. The petitioner institution seeks to assail the action of the respondent No.2, namely the Admission Committee for Professional Courses (ACPC), Gujarat, in not allotting students to the petitioner institution. The prayer has been made before the learned single Judge to issue directions to the ACPC to allot the students to the petitioner institution against the intake of 60 for the Academic Session 2025-2026, in D.Pharm Course, inasmuch as, the petitioner institution was granted recognition by the Pharmacy Council of India prior to the cut off date, i.e. 30.10.2025, which was the last date for admission to the course for the Academic Session 2025-2026. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that as soon as the petitioner institution got recognition from the Pharmacy Council of India, an E-mail dated 13.10.2025 was sent to the ACPC requesting it to include the petitioner institution in the list of colleges for counseling. The ACPC has acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner in denying the permission to the petitioner college to participate in the admission process. 5. Testing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we may record that the learned single Judge in the judgment impugned has noted that the petitioner had preferred the writ petition on 13.11.2025, which was registered on 18.11.2025 and notices were issued therein on 21.11.2025. 5. Testing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, we may record that the learned single Judge in the judgment impugned has noted that the petitioner had preferred the writ petition on 13.11.2025, which was registered on 18.11.2025 and notices were issued therein on 21.11.2025. Even by the date, when the writ petition was presented before this Court, the last date of completion of the admission process, i.e. 30.11.2025 was already over. No explanation could be offered by the petitioner institution for not moving this Court for a period of one month even after getting recognition/approval on 09.10.2025 from the Pharmacy Council of India, or inaction of ACPC inspite of intimation by the E-mail dated 13.10.2025. 6. The learned single Judge has also noted the directions issued by the Apex Court contained in paragraph Nos. ‘41’ to ‘46.6’ of Parshvanath Charitable Trust vs. All India Council for Technical Education, reported in 2013 3 SCC 385 , in paragraph No. ‘9’ of the impugned judgment, which reads as under :- “9. Upon perusal of the record, and considering the submissions made by Learned Advocate Ms. Aishvarya, this Court noted the fact that that admissions to pharmacy councils, along with other technical courses, are governed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parshwana Charitable Trust (supra) In paragraphs 41 to 46.6 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under; “41. Aishvarya, this Court noted the fact that that admissions to pharmacy councils, along with other technical courses, are governed by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parshwana Charitable Trust (supra) In paragraphs 41 to 46.6 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under; “41. The appropriate Schedule, thus would be as follows; Event Schedule Conduct of entrance examination (AIEEE/State CET/Management quota exams, etc.) In the month of May Declaration of result of qualifying examination (12th exam or similar) and entrance examination On or before 5th June 1st round of counselling/admission for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 30th June 2nd round of counselling for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 10th July Last round of counselling for allotment of seats To be completed on or before 20th July Last date for admitting candidates in seats other than allotted above 30th July However, any number of rounds for counselling could be conducted depending on local requirements, but all the rounds shall be completed before 30th July Commencement of academic session 1st August Last date up to which students can be admitted against vacancies arising due to any reason (no student should be admitted in any institution after the last date under any quota) 15th August Last date of granting or refusing approval by AICTE 10th April Last date of granting or refusing approval by University/State Government 15th May 42. The admission to academic courses should start, as proposed, by 1st August of the relevant year. The seats remaining vacant should again be duly notified and advertised. All seats should be filled positively by 15th August after which there shall be no admission, whatever be the reason or ground. 43. We find that the above Schedule is in conformity with the affiliation/recognition schedule afore-noticed. They both can co-exist. Thus, we approve these admission dates and declare it to be the law which shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned and none of the authorities shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary these dates of admission. Certainty in this field is bound to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of grant of admission and commencement of the technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of courses. 44. Certainty in this field is bound to serve the ends of fair, transparent and judicious method of grant of admission and commencement of the technical courses. Any variation is bound to adversely affect the maintenance of higher standards of education and systemic and proper completion of courses. 44. Having declared the confirmed Schedule for grant of approval and completion of admission process, now it is necessary for us to revert to the apparent error in exercise of power and discretion by the AICTE. Admittedly, the appellant-college had been carrying on its education courses since the year 1994. It had submitted its application for transfer to the new site on 24th May, 2008. There is no document placed before us by any party including the AICTE to show that this application was dealt with either by the Regional Office or by the main office of the AICTE. Having known the fact that the college had shifted to a new site, the AICTE accorded approval for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 for which again there is no justification placed on record. It is the case of the appellant that the Expert Committee visited the new site of the appellant- college where the college was being run on 26th June, 2008. Thereafter approval for the two academic years was granted. Strangely, on the basis of the same report, on 18th May, 2010 the show cause notice was issued and again the Expert Committee is stated to have visited the college premises on 16th July, 2010 leading to the issuance firstly of the rejection of the seats and, secondly, of withdrawal/cancellation of approval on 7th January, 2011. 45. We fail to understand why the college was granted approval for the academic years 2008-09 and 2009-10 particularly when the Expert Committee is stated to have visited the premises on 26th June, 2008 and found inadequacies in the report. It is certainly a lapse on the part of the AICTE which cannot be ignored by the Court as it had far-reaching consequences including placing the career of the students admitted during these two years in jeopardy. Even though the High Court has directed allocation of these students in other colleges, their academic course certainly stands adversely affected and disturbed, for which the AICTE is responsible. Even though the High Court has directed allocation of these students in other colleges, their academic course certainly stands adversely affected and disturbed, for which the AICTE is responsible. In this regard, the Court cannot overlook such apparent erroneous approach and default which can be for anything but bona fide reasons. Thus, we impose costs of Rs.50,000/- upon the AICTE for such irresponsible working. The costs would be payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and would be recovered from the salary of the erring officials/officers involved in this erroneous approach. The recovery shall be effected in accordance with law. 46. For the reasons afore-recorded, we find no merit in both the appeals afore-referred. While dismissing these appeals, we issue the following directions : 46.1 Both grant/refusal of approval and admission schedule, as aforestated, shall be strictly adhered to by all the authorities concerned including the AICTE, University, State Government and any other authority directly or indirectly connected with the grant of approval and admission. 46.2 No person or authority shall have the power or jurisdiction to vary the Schedule prescribed hereinabove. 46.3 While dealing with the application for grant of approval to new colleges or additional seats, the AICTE shall inform the applicant within three weeks from the date of receipt of its application or date of inspection, as the case may be, the shortcomings/defects, who, in turn, shall remove such shortcomings/defects within 15 days from the date of such communication or within such period as the AICTE may grant and re-submit its papers without default. The process of grant of approval has to be transparent and fair. The AICTE or the concerned University or State Government shall take disciplinary action against the person who commits default in adherence to the Schedule and performance of his duties in accordance therewith. 46.4 The reports submitted by the Expert Committee visiting the college should be unambiguous and clear, and should bear the date and time of inspection and should be sufficiently comprehensive and inspection be conducted in the presence of a representative of the institute. 46.5 The students of the appellant-college shall be re- allocated to the recognized and affiliated colleges in terms of the judgment of the High Court; and the AICTE and the concerned University shall ensure that the academic courses of these students are completed within the balance period of the academic year in all respects. 46.5 The students of the appellant-college shall be re- allocated to the recognized and affiliated colleges in terms of the judgment of the High Court; and the AICTE and the concerned University shall ensure that the academic courses of these students are completed within the balance period of the academic year in all respects. For this purpose, if extra classes are required to be held, the concerned institute, the University and the AICTE are directed to ensure holding of such extra classes. 46.6 If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to 30th April of the concerned year and grants approval to a college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to be made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the appellate authority grants approval after 30th April, it will not be operative for the current academic year. All colleges which have been granted approval/affiliation by 10th or 30th April, as the case may be, shall alone be included in the brochure/advertisement/website for the purpose of admission and none thereafter. 7. A careful reading of the schedule prescribed by the Apex Court clearly indicates that time-line has been provided for completion of each stage of the admission process and as per the directions contained therein, only those new colleges or additional seats for existing colleges, could be permitted to participate in the admission process, wherein an approval/recognition was granted prior to 30 th April of the concerned Academic Year (2025 for our purposes). The directions contained in paragraph No. ‘46.6’ of the said decision as extracted in paragraph No. ‘9’ of the judgment impugned, thus, clearly indicates that all those colleges, who have been granted approval/affiliation after 30th April of the concerned year, will not be permitted to participate in the admission process in the concerned Academic Year. 8. Further, as per the schedule prescribed by the Apex Court, the process of admission with the allocation of seat to each admitted candidate, is to be completed finally by 30th July of the concerned Academic Year and the Academic Session is to start from 1 st August of the concerned year. 9. 8. Further, as per the schedule prescribed by the Apex Court, the process of admission with the allocation of seat to each admitted candidate, is to be completed finally by 30th July of the concerned Academic Year and the Academic Session is to start from 1 st August of the concerned year. 9. However, the last date of completion of the approval/recognition process, it seems, has been extended by the Apex Court on an application filed by the Pharmacy Council of India namely M.A. No. 711 of 2025 in C.A. No. 9048 of 2012, wherein the following order was passed :- “M.A. No. 711 of 2025 in C.A. No. 9048/2012 (44.10) 1.Perused the application filed by the applicant(s). 2.The application is allowed, in terms of prayer clause “a” which is extracted below :- “(a) Grant extension of completion of approval process of the institutions up to August 31 st 2025 and appeals/compliances process till September 30 th 2025 to the Applicant Pharmacy Council of India for the academic year 2025-2026, and further extend the completion of counselling till October 30 th 2025.” 10. A perusal of the directions contained in the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the Apex Court, makes it evident that extension for completion of approval process of the institution upto 31.08.2025 and appeals/compliances process till 30 th September, 2025 to the applicant Pharmacy Council of India for the Academic Session 2025-2026 was granted, and further extension was granted for completion of counseling till 30.10.2025. Even, going by the said order of the Apex Court dated 09.05.2025, the extension for completion of the approval process for the new colleges/additional intake by the Pharmacy Council of India was uptill 31.08.2025. Meaning thereby, approval of new colleges and/or increase in the intake of the existing colleges was to be completed and recognition/approval was to be granted uptill 31.08.2025, so as to permit the new college or additional intake to be included in the list of counseling for the purposes of admission to D.Pharm courses for the Academic Session 2025-2026. 11. Meaning thereby, approval of new colleges and/or increase in the intake of the existing colleges was to be completed and recognition/approval was to be granted uptill 31.08.2025, so as to permit the new college or additional intake to be included in the list of counseling for the purposes of admission to D.Pharm courses for the Academic Session 2025-2026. 11. It may not be out of place to note that the petitioner college has never approached this Court or the Apex Court seeking for any extension or direction for participation in the admission process for the Academic Session 2025-2026 prior to 13.11.2025, when the writ petition, out of which the present Letters Patent Appeal has arisen, was presented for the first time before this Court. 12. It further appears from the record that on another Misc. Application No. 1593 of 2025 with Interlocutory Application No. 214406 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 9048 of 2012 [ Parshvanath Charitable Trust(supra)] filed by the Pharmacy Council of India, extension of the date for completion of the approval process was granted upto 30.09.2025 qua the list of colleges mentioned and marked as Annexure ‘A-7’ therein and for appeal/compliances uptill 10.10.2025 to the Pharmacy Council of India for the Academic Year 2025-2026. The list of colleges mentioned and marked as Annexure ‘A-7’, with respect to which extension of the date for completion of approval process was granted uptill 30.09.2025, is appended at page No. ‘155’ to ‘164’ of the paper book, as Annexure-8 to the minutes of the meeting of the Pharmacy Council of India held on 13.09.2025. The said list is of those institutions wherein inspection reports (23) were pending covered under the Supreme Court order dated 08.09.2025. It is demonstrated before us that the name of the petitioner institution was not included in the said list and hence, the petitioner cannot seek extension of time for approval process granted by the Apex Court to the Pharmacy Council of India, vide order dated 08.09.2025. 13. The status of the petitioner institution, as on the date of the passing of the order dated 08.09.2025, is demonstrated from Annexure-10, which is also part of the minutes of the meeting of the Pharmacy Council of India held on 13.09.2025, wherein the institution included in Annexure-10, refers the name of the petitioner stating that statutory documents had been received with the application, but inspection could not be arranged. 14. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner institution cannot seek benefit of the extension granted by the Apex Court in the order dated 08.09.2025, on the application moved by the Pharmacy Council of India, inasmuch as, on the date of the said order, the status of the petitioner institution was that it had moved the application alongwith statutory documents to the Pharmacy Council of India, but even the inspection of the institute was not concluded. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner institution/appellant herein that the Admission Committee, namely the ACPC, has committed an error or acted in an arbitrary manner in not including the petitioner institution in the list of the counseling as per the directions issued by the Apex Court for granting extension for inclusion of the list of new institutions, is found to be devoid of force. 16. The challenge to the judgment impugned of the learned single Judge, as such, cannot be sustained. The appeal stands dismissed being devoid of merits. The Civil Application also stands disposed of, accordingly.