(MAY 3, 2002) 2002 (TLS)127145

2002-AIR (Del)-0-440 :: 2002-ILRDLH-9-436

ANIS AHMED Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA

( 1 ). As the facts and the issues that arise for our consideration in these writ petitions are similar , we propose to take up all these writ petitions together and dispose of the same by this common judgment and order. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners by way of public interest litigation for a direction to respondent N0. 1/delhi University to take disciplinary action against all Full Time law Teachers of the Delhi "university, who are practising in the courts and also praying for a direction to prohibit all Full Time Law Teachers of the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi from carrying on legal practice/profession and also from appearing in the courts of law in any manner. The petitiioner has also sought for a direction to the delhi State Bar Council, respondent No. 3 to cancel the enrolment/licence to practice given to Full time Law Teachers.

( 2 ). THE petitioner No,1 is an Advocate practicing in the High Court of Delhi and he has stated that he has filed the writ petition as he is interested in the advancement of legal education in india. The petitioner No. 2, at the time of filing of the writ petition, was a Law Graduate, who passed out and obtained Degree of Law at the re-levant time when the writ petition was being filed. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a Professor of Law in the faculty of Law, of the University of Delhi. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in law and posted at Law Centre-II of the Faculty of law of the University of Delhi in August, 1971 thereafter the petitioner got his promotion and in due course of time, became a Professor in Law in - the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi. . The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order passed by the Bar Council of India on 9. 8. 97 cancelling and removing the name of the petitioner from the roll of Advocates of the Bar council with a further direction that it would be open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for enrolment as an Advocate on his ceasing to be in employment. This petition is filed by the petitioners who was also a faculty member in the Faculty of Law of the University of Delhi. He has, in this writ petitions, challenged the legality of the order dt-9-8. 97 passed by the Bar Council of India directing removal of the name of the petitioner from the roll of Advocates.

( 3 ). The common question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether or not a faculty member in the Faculty of law of the University of Delhi could subsequently enroll himself as an advocate and appear-in a court of law and simultaneously carry on the duties of a full time faculty member of the faculty of Law of the University of Delhi. Another ancillary issue, which also was argued in these writ petitions is whether or not an enrolled Advocate could apply for and be given a faculty position in the Faculty of Law of the university of Delhi after the concerned person has enrolled himself/herself-as an Advocate.

( 4 ). The private respondents in the writ petition filed by way of public interest litigation are/were all full time faculty members of the university of Delhi, who are/were employed as full time faculty members in the University of Delhi and have subsequently enrolled themselves as Advocates through the Delhi State Bar Council.

( 5 ). The petitioners in the other two writ petitions were appointed as faculty members of the faculty of Law in the University of Delhi and continued to be employed as full time faculty members when subsequently they enrolled themselves as Advocates through the Delhi State Bar Council.

( 6 ). In the light of the above facts, the aforesaid two questions would arise for our consideration in these writ petitions.

( 7 ). The petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition filed by way of public interest litigat