The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed the counselling schedule issued by the Uttar Pradesh government for D.Pharma courses for the academic year 2025–26, holding it to be in violation of the timeline extended by the Supreme Court. Justice Pankaj Bhatia delivered the judgment on July 9, 2025, while deciding a batch of writ petitions filed by multiple pharmacy institutions represented by Advocate Rajat Rajan Singh.
Background:
The petitioners, all running D.Pharma courses affiliated with the Board of Technical Education, U.P., challenged the counselling schedule issued by the state government. They argued that under The Pharmacy Act, 1948, the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) is the statutory body empowered to grant approvals for pharmacy institutions. For the academic year 2025–26, although the petitioners had applied for approvals, the PCI had not yet passed orders, and the state issued a counselling schedule ahead of time.
The Supreme Court, in Parshvanath Charitable Trust v. AICTE (2013) 3 SCC 385, had set fixed timelines for the approval and counselling process. For the current year, by order in M.A. No.711/2025 in Civil Appeal No.9048/2012, the Supreme Court extended approval deadlines up to August 31, appeals/compliances till September 30, and completion of counselling till October 30, 2025.
Arguments:
The petitioners contended that the state’s counselling schedule, running from June 27 to July 26, 2025, violated the Supreme Court’s extended timeline, which would result in their exclusion from counselling. They relied on the High Court’s earlier judgment in HMS College of Pharmacy, Bulandshahr v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No.8389 of 2023), where a similar premature counselling schedule had been quashed.
The state defended its action, arguing that early counselling was needed to prevent student migration to other states and ensure adherence to mandatory class requirements (around 181 sessions) before awarding diplomas. It also submitted that students had “freeze/float” options, allowing them to shift colleges if approvals came later.
The PCI, represented by counsel Ravi Singh, assured the court that decisions on pending approval applications would be taken promptly.
Court’s Analysis:
Justice Bhatia noted that the state had not approached the Supreme Court to modify the extended timelines and that initiating counselling ahead of the Supreme Court’s cut-off dates was “wholly inappropriate.” Referring to its prior rulings, the court held that such premature actions defeated the purpose of the Pharmacy Act and deprived eligible institutions of participation.
The court directed the PCI to decide pending approval applications within two weeks and advised the PCI to consider adopting a longer approval cycle—such as five years instead of yearly approvals—to avoid recurring litigation and ensure academic continuity.
Decision:
The Allahabad High Court quashed the entire counselling process and directed that the state may only conduct counselling after the Supreme Court’s extended timeline expires.
- Cases: Writ-C No.6289/2025, 6324/2025, 6367/2025, 6531/2025, 6535/2025
