Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat & Anr.                      ...  Appellant
Vs.
Secretay, Sharda Bhavan Education Society & Ors.        ...  Respondent

      This is an appeal against an order dated 5th October, 1991 passed by the State Commission of Maharashtra in Complaint No. 35/90 on its file. The relevant facts as gleaned from the order of the State Commission are briefly set out below :

      The two complainants before the  State Commission, Ms. Swati Dikshit and Mr. Shridhar Dikshit, were students of D. Pharmacy course in the Pharmacy college run by the Opposite Party Sharada Bhavan Educational Society. The students were admitted to the College in July, 1987. They passed the final examination in May, 1989 and completed their practical training on 23rd July, 1989. But the students could obtain registration after having qualified in the D. Pharmacy course only in April, 1991.

      Registration as duly qualified pharamacists is essential to enable a student to undergo three months practical training and to practice as a pharmacist. Because of the delay in getting the registration they remained unemployed after passing the Diploma in Pharmacy examination in May, 1989. Thus they had to suffer for two years for being unable to do pharmacy work and this was due to the fact that this Pharmacy College had admitted students in excess of 30 the authorised maxium number of admissions. Consequently according to them there was deficiency in the service on the part of the management of the Pharmacy College. They claimed compensation amounting Rs.2 lacs each for the loss sustained by them due to delay in getting registration as Pharmacist including mental torture, humiliation and travelling expenses.

      The State Commission came to the finding that delay for registration of the students in question wa due to delay in the communication of the orders between the concerned Departments of the Goovernment of Maharastra and that no negligence could be attributed to any one of the opposite parties. The State Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint as void of substance.

      To do justice to this appeal, we found it expedient to implead the Pharmacy Council of India. A number of hearings were held in this case and after taking into account the submissions made at the hearings, the information furnished by the Pharamacy Council of India and after going through the records, we find that there is merit in the appeal.

1)    In order to work as a Pharamacist, it is essential for a Pharmacist to be registered under the provisions of the Pharamacy Act 1948. An institution can impart the course of Diploma in Pharmacy provided it has been approved by the Pharamacy Council of India, Section 12 of the Pharamacy Act of 1948 is reproduced below :

"Any authority in a State which holds an examination in Pharamacy 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 Educational Regulations, shall declare the said examination to be an approved examination for the purpose of qualifying for registration as a pharmacist under this Act"

"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 Education Regulations, shall declare the said course of study for the purpose of admission to an approved examination for pharmacists."

      The Statutory provisions reproduced above enjoin that the "approval of the institution which imparts the course of Diploma in Pharmacy by the Pharrmacy Council of India......". is a pre-requisite for grant of registration. In other words, the course of study must have been duly approved by the Central Council and a student who has undertaken that course aalone can be admitted to an approved examination which again must have the approval of the Central Council. Only thereafter a person who has undertaken the approved examination will be eligible to be granted registration as a Pharmacist. In other words, unless and until the course conducted by an institution is approved by the Pharmacy Council of India, students admitted in the said institution are not eligible for the purpose of admission to an approved examination of pharmacists. While the registration as Pharmacists is done by the State Pharmacy Council, this is subject to compliance with the conditions stipulated in the Act., that he has passed the approved examination after prescribed study in an approved institution.

      The Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State granted permission to the Sharda Bhawan Educational Society in August 1982 to un a Diploma Course with a maxium of 30 students. According to the status report on the Nanded Pharamacy College furnised by the Pharmacy Council of India, the Sharada Bhavan Educational Society's Nanded Pharmacy College was approved by the Pharmacy Council of India in October, 1984 for admitting 30 students only upto 1986. After inspection in March, 1985 the Pharmacy Council of India in November, 1985 resolved not to increase the admissions beyone 30. The institution was again inspected in April, 1986 and the Council decided that admissions to the college be restricted to the already sanctioned intake only, namely, 30 students. Likwise, the institution was inspected in January 1987 and it was again decided not to increase the intake of students in the college in view of the gross shortcomings and non-compliance with the requirements of the Educational Regulations of 1981. The institution was again inspected in February, 1989 and it was reiterated that the restriction on admissions, viz, intake already sanctioned would continue to be operative. Ultimately it was only in December, 1990 that the Pharmacy Council of India agreed to grant approval upto 1991-92 academic session for admissions restricted to 60 students only.

      All these inspection reports and decisions of the Pharmacy Council of India were duly communicated to the Nanded Pharmacy College.

      However, the college had admitted 60 students for the pharmacists course from 1986 onwards. The two complainants were so admitted as students in the College in July, 1987. The delay in their being granted registration after passing the examination and undergoing the practical training was the direct result of admissions, the conduct of the society in making admissions in excess of the sanctioned numbers in violation of the provisions of the Pharmacy Act, 1948 and  the rules made thereunder.

      It was the contention of the Respondent Society that the Pharmacy Council in March, 1991 approved retrospectively the maxium limit of admission of 60 students to the course from 1987-88 to 1991-92. In fact the said plea regarding alleged restrospective approval of admission by the competent authority was the main blank defence of the Respondent. There is no merit in this contention. There could be no retrospective regularisation of the admissions in excess of teh maximum. In any case the complainant had already suffered due to their irregular admission to the course which remains uncured.

      The facts, therefore, establish clearly that these was unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the private College authorities towards the students who were deliberately admited to the course in violation of the law and the regulations and who in consequence suffered considerable delay in obtaining the registration. The order of the State Commission is therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.

      The complainant before the State Commission had asked for award of a compensation of Rs.2 lacs of each as monetary loss because of non-employment, mental torture and expenditure in correspondence, postage, travelling expenses etc.

      Before this National Commission, the appellants have asked for costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of appellant No.1, Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, Pune for meeting the costs of monitoring the costs at the level of the State Commission and for prosecuting appeal before this Commission.

      The compensation claimed by the complainants is, on the face of it, excessive, any unconsionably high. We therefore, allow a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the two complainants. In addition, a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs to each of the complainants and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs to the appellant No.1, Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat are allowed.

      The appeal will stand disposed of as above.