Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, A.K. CHAWLA, JJ.
Padma Landol – Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi and Another – Respondents
LPA No. 624 of 2017, C.M. Nos. 34415, 44396 of 2017, 2639 of 2018
Decided On : 23-01-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. Ramesh Mishra, Mr. Rahul Dutta.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Ms. Slomita Rai, Mr. Prang Newmai, Mr. Preet Pal Singh.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the eligibility criteria for the two and three year LL.M. courses, particularly in the context of the appellant's engagement in the legal profession and the Bar Council of India's resolutions.
Headnote:
University Admission - LL.M Course - [LL.M. Course, University Admission] - [LL.M. Act, Section 8(i), 8(ii), 8(iii)] - The court discussed the provisions of the LL.M. course offered by the University, specifically focusing on the distinction between the two and three year courses, and the eligibility criteria for each. The court also considered the Bar Council of India's resolutions allowing practicing advocates to continue their LL.M. course. The interpretation of the eligibility criteria and the application of the rules to the appellant's situation influenced the court's decision to allow her to continue in the two year course and occupy the hostel for the duration of her course.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought relief against Delhi University's requirement for her to enroll in the three year LL.M. degree instead of the two year degree she had applied for. The University maintained that as an enrolled advocate, she was required to join the three year course. The appellant approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the two and three year LL.M. courses catered to different categories of applicants based on their engagement in employment, trade, profession, or occupation. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and she was permitted to continue in the two year course and occupy the hostel for the duration of her course.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to admission in the two year LL.M. course despite the University's requirement for enrolled advocates to join the three year course. The Court also considered the appellant's allegations of harassment by the University.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellant's irregular and sporadic legal research assistance and guidance to students did not constitute full-time or part-time practice of the legal profession, and therefore, she was entitled to continue in the two year course. The Court also expressed concerns about the University's overzealous application of regulations and the potential prejudice shown in the Show Cause Notices.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to continue in the two year course and occupy the hostel for the duration of her course. The appeal was allowed in the above terms with no costs.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of a learned Single Judge by which her writ petition for relief against Delhi University, which required her to enroll in the three year LL.M degree (instead of the two year degree, opted by her) was rejected.
2. The petitioner/appellant applied for the two year LL.M degree course, after completing her LL.B degree. She was selected but asked to join the three year LL.M course, instead of the two year course she had applied for. Her grievance was that the brochure issued by the University gave no indication that she had to necessarily apply for the three year course, because she had enrolled as an Advocate. Initially, the writ petition was joined by another student; he was also a party to this appeal. Rebuffed by the University, which maintained that she was a professional as she had enrolled as an Advocate, she approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. A learned Single Judge, by order dated 04.08.2016; noted the petitioners’ contentions that the University’s stand that a professional cannot pursue a two year LL.M. course is arbitrary and irrational and violates his fundamental rights; what a student does in his or her free time, i.e. at the time when the classes are over cannot be regulated by it. The learned Single Judge also noticed the Bar Council of India’s Resolutions in its meeting held on 18.12.2009 and 20.12.2009 to the effect that practicing advocates can join in LL.M. course as regular students without suspending his practice. The petitioner’s argument was that once the Bar Council of India (which regulates the legal profession) allows an advocate to join an LL.M. course, the University cannot impose any other conditions/ restrictions on his practice of law. On the basis of this argument, and the submissions of the University, interim orders were made directing admission to the two-year course. The University was directed to place on record its notification in this regard- i.e. notification (bearing No. CNC-II/093/2015-16/Delhi, the 26th June, 2015). It was placed on record. The University’s stand was that this notification is part of its policy and that it clearly stipulates that the two year LL.M. degree is a full-time course available to a candidate who is not in any employment or not engaged in any other trade, business or occupation. The semesters are spread out over four terms and there would be minimum of 30 contact hours per term. The minimum qualification for the two year LL.M. course was 55% marks in LL.B. The criteria for the three-year LL.M course is different.
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding as follows:
“The contrast in the two courses is evident. The 2 years LL.M. course is for those persons who are not engaged in any employment, trade, profession or occupation. It is treated as a full time course. The 3 years LL.M. course is for those persons who are employed or engaged, in any trade, profession, business or occupation. The rational appears to be clear. The rational being that a person who is not engaged in any trade, profession or business or employment can devote not only more hours to college study but also more hours to home study; that is why such a person is entitled to complete this course in a period of 2 years. A person who is engaged in a trade, profession, occupation or business or employed (as is so in the present case) would have much less time to devote to his study which include not only the study period during classes but also the home study which is required for such a post-graduate course. The petitioner who is one such applicant admittedly being a practising lawyer is spending several hours in the courts and as such the time available to him in the course of the day to study his LL.M. study is lesser; that is why the course has been spread out over six semesters and qualifies as a 3 year course.
The stand of the Department is clear and unequivocal on this count. T
