AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard.
Ms. Sheela Devi, the complainant, took admission in D-Pharmacy with Tirupati College of Pharmacy/OP2 in the Academic Year 2008-09. She had completed the Diploma course in the year 2010. She applied for registration with Haryana State Pharmacy Council, OP1, along with the requisite fees. Her application was kept pending and she was informed that enquiry was being made. In the meantime, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP1 to register her as one of the candidates for the Pharmacy course.
The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by Haryana State Pharmacy Council, OP1.
In the meantime, the Pharmacy Council of India, passed the following order, on 16.12.2014 : " With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to inform that subject cited issue was considered by Executive Committee of the PCI in its meeting held in December, 2014, which decided to intimate that B.Sc (Home Science) after matriculation without doing 10+2 is not approved under Regulation 5 of the Education Regulations, 1991 for admission to pharmacy courses for the purpose of registration as a pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act, 1948".
Counsel for the respondent/complainant wants to challenge the order of the Pharmacy Council of India. It is contended that it did not take the correct view.
We are of the considered view that this Commission has no jurisdiction in this context. Section 38 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948, clearly lays down, as under :- " 38.?Bar of other jurisdiction - No order refusing to enter a name on the register or removing a name from the register, shall be called in question in any Court".
Moreover, the view taken by the Hon''ble Apex Court also goes against the complainant, in P.T. Koshy & Anr. Vs. Ellen Charitable Tust & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 22532 of 2012, wherein it was authoritatively laid down, as under :- " In view of the judgment of this Court in Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur, 2010 (11) SCC 159, wherein this Court placing reliance on all earlier judgments has categorically held that education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service, therefore, in matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
We are of the view that the same ratio will be applicable to this case. Moreover, the jurisdiction is specifically barred by Section 38 of the Pharmacy Act, 1948. Consequently, we accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the fora below and dismiss the complaint. However, he complainant/ respondent is given liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of her grievances as per law. She may seek help from the celebrated authority reported in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 SCC 583.