Back
2010 (2) ALD 214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
A.GOPAL REDDY, SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
B. Mallesham ..Petitioner
Vs.
The Bar Council of India represented by its Secretary, New Delhi and others. ..Respondents
W.P.Nos.16585, 18135, 19072, 19076, 20521, 21977, 22588, 22587, 19945,17100, 17966 & 23658 of 2009
Decided On : 31-12-2009
Education Law - Rules of Legal Education, 2008 - Rule 5 - Advocates Act, 1961 - Bar Council of India - National Knowledge Commission - University Grants Commission – Law graduate - Eligibility for admission - BCI went beyond the power envisaged under the Act by prescribing minimum qualification i.e. pre-graduation stage. We find it difficult to accept the contention - There is no material in taking a decision to prescribe minimum qualification 10+2 for admission into three years Law Course - Hence the same is arbitrary - Prescribing minimum qualification violates Article 14, since it amounts to discrimination in two homogeneous groups of graduates, namely, regular graduates and graduates who obtained degree in Open University by Distance Education - Held, It is not disputed that all the National Law Schools are insisting 10+2 to prosecute five years law course, but the standards are not uniform in all the law colleges where five years law degree is offered. Therefore, to have uniform standards in the law course either it is five years or three years, the BCI was vested with the jurisdiction to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and confer with the power to make the rules for laying the standards of legal education in consultation with the Universities regulate admission to the law course prescribing the qualification to get admission. When degree obtained by formal or non-formal methods, though it is of three years duration, both cannot be equated for the purpose of admission into law course - Graduation degree obtained through regular class is a different class than those who obtained graduation without prosecuting 10+2 qualification - Admittedly, task to maintain legal standards was referred to an expert body like “Legal Education Committee” and the Committee after due deliberation with eminent personnel connected with the law course suggested standards to be maintained to meet the global challenges - The students who obtained graduation through regular course are well equipped and their accent is different in information and resources once they are in law practice, whereas the students who obtained bachelor’s degree under Open University will not be equipped with rare degrees of qualities – Therefore curriculum, which was finalised by BCI, cannot be termed as perverse or irrational to object sought to be achieved nor can it be termed as arbitrary and illegal - Writ petitions dismissed.
A. Gopal Reddy
1. In all these batch of writ petitions, petitioners are seeking quashing of the Explanation added to Rule 5 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (for short “the Rules, 2008”) and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to admit them into three years Law Course during the academic year 2009-2010.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.16585 of 2009, who passed SSC in 2003 without prosecuting two years Intermediate Course obtained B.A. Degree through Dr.B.R.Ambedkar University in 2009 appeared for LAWCET and secured 1006 rank, was denied admission on the ground that he has not prosecuted 10+2 and directly obtained degree through Open University and not eligible for admission as per the Explanation added to Rule 5.
3. The petitioner in W.P.No.18135 of 2009 on passing SSC examination in the year 1995 without prosecuting two years Intermediate Course obtained B.A. Degree from Annamalai University during the year 2008 and qualified in LAWCET. When she approached 5th respondent—College for admission into three years Law Course she was informed that she is not eligible to get admission as per Rules.
4. The petitioner in W.P.No.19072 of 2009, who completed SSC Examination in the year 1996 could not pursue Intermediate Course but obtained B.A. degree by way of Distance Education from Andhra University, appeared for LAWCET and qualified. When he approached the 5th respondent—College for admission into three years LLB Course, he was informed that as per Rules of Legal Education he was not eligible to get admission into three years Law Course.
5. The petitioner in W.P.No.19676 of 2009 on obtaining SSC qualification in the year 1996 joined two years Intermediate Course but discontinued the same. He completed Graduation in Commerce by Distance Media from Kakatiya University during the year 2004-2009, appeared and secured 4072 rank in the LAWCET but denied admission into three years LL.B. Course.
6. The petitioner in W.P.No.20521 of 2009 after obtaining Secondary School Certificate in 2002 could not prosecute Intermediate Course but obtained B.A. Degree from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University in 2008. He appeared and qualified in LAWCET but he was denied admission on the ground that he has not prosecuted 10+2.
7. The petitioner in W.P.No.21979 of 2009 after passing SSC examination in the year 2002 without undertaking Intermediate Course obtained B.A. Degree from Andhra University by Distance Education, appeared for Entrance Test and secured rank in LAWCET but he was denied admission into three years Law Course.
8. Three petitioners in W.P.No.22588 of 2009 without prosecuting two years Intermediate Course directly obtained B.A. Degrees from Kakatiya University and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar University. Though they were qualified in LAWCET, they were denied admission into three years Law Course.
9. The petitioner in W.P.No.22587 of 2009 after completion of SSC examination in the year 1994 joined Intermediate Course but discontinued the same and obtained B.A. degree directly from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University while working as Record Assistant in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Though he qualified in the LAWCET, he was denied admission into three years Law Course on the ground that he has not prosecuted 10+2.
10. The petitioner in W.P.No.19945 of 2009 completed SSC Examination in the year 1991, discontinued Intermediate Course and Graduation Course, obtained Post Graduation in M.A. Sociology through Madhurai Kamaraj University, appeared for LAWCET and qualified in the same, but denied admission into three years Law Course.
11. The petitioner in W.P.No.19945 of 2009 completed SSC Examination in the year 1996, obtained B.Com Degree in 2002 from School of Distance Education and also completed MBA from Andhra University by Distance Education, appeared for LAWCET and got 3023 rank, but denied admission on the ground of not having 10+2+3 qualification.
12. The petitioner in W.P.No.17966 of 2009 after obtaining Secondary School Certificate in the year
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
