The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur on October 14, 2025 heard a petition filed by Global Pharmacy College which sought to quash the order which banned providing NOC to pharmacy colleges. Justice Sunil Beniwal held that the State Government cannot, without proper legislative authority, impose a blanket ban on granting NOCs, especially when it targets only private colleges.
The petitioner College had applied to start a B-Pharmacy degree course and sought the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) and affiliation from the respondent no. 1 State and respondent no. 6 Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS).Following inspection, the petitioner was granted provisional consent of affiliation by respondent no. 6 on 25.02.2025, but the respondent no. 4 Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) rejected the application on 12.02.2025 due to non-submission of NOC and consent of affiliation. Subsequently, respondent no. 1 issued an order on 26.04.2025 banning the grant of NOC to private colleges intending to start B-Pharmacy courses, over concerns of the growing number of B-Pharma graduates and unemployment. The petitioner contended that the ban was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it targeted only private colleges while government institutions continued admitting students stating that the decision violated Article 14, and exceeded executive authority.The respondents defended the ban as a policy decision supported by data from the Rajasthan Pharmacy Council and in the public interest to prevent oversaturation in the pharmacy field.
The Court considered if the respondents had the authority to impose such a ban without legislative backing, if the decision to restrict the ban to private colleges was arbitrary, and whether the ban was justified in light of unemployment concerns. It referred to Pharmacy Council of India vs. Rajeev College of Pharmacy & Ors. AIR 2022 SC 4321, T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2002) 8 SCC 481, and Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2003) 6 SCC 697, and reiterated that the right to establish educational institutions is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), subject only to reasonable restrictions enacted by law, and that executive orders or policy decisions cannot impose a blanket ban. The Court also observed that the petitioner had filed the writ petition within one month of the impugned order and had complied with all requisite norms under the Pharmacy Act, 1948. In view of these circumstances, the Court held the petition deserved acceptance and allowed it, declaring the order dated 26.04.2025 arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court further directed that the necessary NOC be issued to the petitioner if statutory requirements were fulfilled, that the fees deposited for the academic year 2025-26 be adjusted for the subsequent session and disposed of all pending applications.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shreyansh Mardia. Mr; Mayank Rajpurohit.
For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Ms. Kanchan Jodha; Mr. Nishant Gaur; Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary; Ms. Akshiti Singhvi; Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi; Mr. Shagun Mathur; Mr. Tanishq Bafila
