The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of the Principal of a law college must adhere to the requirements of the Advocates Act and the Rules of the Bar Council of India, ensuring the harmonious working of the universities and the Bar Council of India in respect of legal education.

Judgment

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - The Bar Council of India challenges the judgments of the High Court of Allahabad in two writ petitions holding that a the appointment of Respondent 5 in these appeals as the Principal of the Dayanand College of Law was valid and within the competence of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chhatrapati Shri Shahu Ji Maharaj Kanpur University, Kanpur. Respondent 5 was appointed Principal of the said Law College on 11 - 12 - 1995. On an inspection, the Bar Council of India found that Respondent 5 did not possess a qualification in law and hence withdrew its b recognition to the College. At that stage, the Management of the College filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 48183 of 2000 questioning the validity of the appointment of Respondent ~ as the Principal of the College. Meanwhile, Respondent 5 was transferred as the Principal of Nagrik Degree College and he challenged the said order of transfer on the ground that he was competent to hold the post of Principal of the Law College and the c reason for his transfer was unsustainable and that a Principal could not be transferred to another college as was sought to be done. The bone of contention in the writ petitions was whether a person who did not possess a degree or a postgraduate degree in law and was not qualified to practise law, could be appointed as the Principal of a law college and whether it was not essential to have a degree in law before one could be appointed as Principal d of a law college. The Bar Council of India was not a party to the writ petitions. The High Court took the view that going by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the University Act"), such an appointment could be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 or in the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. The High Court proceeded on the basis that there was a conflict between the two enactments, namely, the University Act and the Advocates Act and in terms e of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the University Act, the later State Act with the assent of the President, would prevail over the Advocates Act and since appointment to the post of a Principal of a college affiliated to a university was governed by the University Act, the appointment of Respondent 5 as Principal of the Law College was liable to be upheld. It was also held that the Bar Council of India did not have any control regarding legal education. The order transferring Respondent 5 away from the post of Principal of the Law College was consequently set aside. No notice was also issued to the Bar Council of India, the apex professional body of advocates, before taking such a decision. However, taking note of the consequences of the decision rendered by the High Court, the Bar Council of India has filed these appeals challenging the decision of the High Court with the leave of 9 this Court.

2. The appointments to higher educational institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh including degree colleges is done by the Higher Education Services Commission constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission h (Procedure for Selection of Teachers) Regulations, 1983. Section 12 of the Act insists that every appointment of a teacher shall be in terms of the Act and a teacher is defined to include a Principal. Section 12(1) provides that any appointment made in contravention of the Act would be void. On the basis of the relevant Regulations framed under Section 31 of the said Act, advertisements are to be issued inviting applications for appointment of Principals to various degree colleges that had made requisitions in that behalf or had reported vacancy and on the basis of the procedure for selection, a list is to be prepared of the candidates eligible for appointment as Principals. The appoint