IMPORTANT POINT
Pursuing law and practicing law are two different things. For enrolment as an advocate, rules of the Bar Council of India have to be complied with.

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby Writ Petition No.6133 of 2002 preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant in brief is that after completion of professional course i.e. Licentiate of the Court of Examiners in Homoeopathy medicines (LCEH), she took admission to LL.B. course conducted by University of Mumbai. It is submitted by the appellant that LCEH is considered as equivalent to graduation degree by the Central Council of Homoeopathy and such decision is even approved by the Government of India for equating the pay scales.

3. The University of Mumbai admitted the appellant to law course after satisfying itself as regards the equivalence of the professional qualification possessed by her. After completion of her LL.B. degree course, the appellant being desirous of practicing law surrendered her certificate of practicing homoeopathy, which was duly accepted by Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy on 25.9.2001.

4. In October, 2001, the appellant applied to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for getting herself enrolled as Advocate and on knowing that her case has been referred to Bar Council of India for clarification as regards her eligibility to get enrolled with reference to her graduation qualification, the appellant made representation to the Bar Council of India. On 23.1.2002, the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa informed appellant that she cannot be considered for enrolment as an Advocate as her qualification LCEH is not recongnized by Bar Council of India.

5. Upon an application being moved by the appellant, Bar Council of India by letter dated 8.8.2002 reiterated that the professional course LCEH is not considered equivalent to degree course. Aggrieved by this, the appellant moved the High Court by way of writ petition praying for quashing of the communications issued by the respondent informing that she cannot seek enrolment as an Advocate since qualification of LCEH in Homoeopathy is not recognized as equivalent to graduation. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the Bar Council of Maharashtra or Bar Council of India have no jurisdiction or authorities to decide the question of equivalence of educational qualifications, and therefore, their orders are not valid. Bombay University having considered this as a degree equivalent to BHMS admitted the appellant for the three years LL.B. course and now she cannot be denied the enrolment on the ground of non-recognition of the degree of LCEH. It has also been pleaded that the appellant was not given an opportunity to put forward her case and hence the principles of natural justice were violated and consequently the whole action is of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Braj K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Central Council of Homoeopathy came to be established under the provisions of Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 and the main object of this statutory body inter alia was to bring uniformity in the academic courses all over India and also to bring uniformity in various nomenclatures for the courses in homeopathy conducted by various institutions. Central Council of Homoeopathy after considering various courses and nomenclatures for the courses in DMS, DHMS, LCEH, etc. decided to have one common nomenclature for graduation course in homoeopathy i.e. BHMS. Professional course of LCEH in homoeopathy completed earlier by the appellant was considered as equivalent to graduation degree by the Central Council of Homoeopathy. It is further pleaded that the Bar Council of India does not even have a defined policy as regards the equivalent of educational qualification to the graduation degree and the Bar Council