SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Mad) 2567

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
Jeevarathinam & Others
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Secretary to Government Law Department Fort St. George & Others
W.P. Nos. 3028 of 2007, 3401, 4044, 4795 and 8723 of 2007 and M.P. Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 of 2007 in W.P. No. 3028 of 2007, M.P. No. 1 of 2007 in W.P. No. 3401 of 2007, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 in W.P. No. 4044 of 2007, M.P. No. 2 of 2007 in W.P. No. 4795 of 2007 and M.P. No.1 of 2007 in W.P. No.8723 of 2007
Decided on : 22-07-2008

Advocates appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:R. Shivakumar, Advocate, G. Sankaran, Spl. GP Assisted by C.K. Vishnupriya, AGP, L. Chandrakumar, Advocate, AR.L. Sundaresan, SC, AL. Ganthimathi, M. Sriram, Advocates, K. Kumar, SC, G. Muthukumar, S.T.P. Kuilmozhi, Advocates.

The judgment established the principle that the notification and requisition made by the State were ultra vires to the UGC Regulations and unconstitutional, and any consequential selections made would have no validity in the eye of the law. The respondent State was directed to amend the Special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordance with the law.

Headnote:

Legal Education - State of Tamil Nadu - University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations, 2000, Section 14 and 26 - The court considered whether the State of Tamil Nadu was correct in omitting to notify that the candidates who had applied for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) must have their Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject. The judgment discussed the chaotic state of legal education, the UGC qualifications for the post of Lecturers, and the binding nature of UGC directions in relation to Law Colleges. The court held that the notification and requisition made by the State were ultra vires to the UGC Regulations and unconstitutional, and any consequential selections made would have no validity in the eye of the law. The respondent State was directed to amend the Special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The court considered whether the State of Tamil Nadu was correct in omitting to notify that the candidates who had applied for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) must have their Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject. The judgment discussed the chaotic state of legal education, the UGC qualifications for the post of Lecturers, and the binding nature of UGC directions in relation to Law Colleges. The court held that the notification and requisition made by the State were ultra vires to the UGC Regulations and unconstitutional, and any consequential selections made would have no validity in the eye of the law. The respondent State was directed to amend the Special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordance with the law.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the notification and requisition made by the State were ultra vires to the UGC Regulations and unconstitutional, and any consequential selections made would have no validity in the eye of the law. The respondent State was directed to amend the Special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordance with the law.

Issues: The issues included whether the State of Tamil Nadu was correct in omitting to notify that the candidates who had applied for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) must have their Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject, and whether the notification and requisition made by the State were in accordance with the UGC Regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notification and requisition made by the State were ultra vires to the UGC Regulations and unconstitutional, and any consequential selections made would have no validity in the eye of the law. The respondent State was directed to amend the Special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The court declared the notification and requisition made by the State to be ultra vires to the UGC Regulations and unconstitutional, and any consequential selections made would have no validity in the eye of the law. The respondent State was directed to amend the Special Rules in accordance with the UGC Regulations and thereafter, request the TRB to recruit candidates for the post of Lecturers in accordance with the law.

Judgment

These matters were directed to be posted before this Court for final disposal by the orders of the Honble Chief Justice dated 7. 2008.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

3. The short question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the State of Tamil Nadu was correct in omitting to notify that the candidates who had applied for the post of Lecturer (Senior Scale) must have their Post Graduate Degree in the relevant subject.

4. The answer to this question will have a great bearing on the future legal education in the State of Tamil Nadu.

5. The Law Commission headed by the doyen of the Indian Bar Shri M.C. Setalvad in the report on "Reform of Judicial Administration" described the situation then prevailing as chaotic and the law graduates churned out as half baked lawyers who do not know even the elements of law and went on to describe them as drones and parasites let loose on society.

6. Speaking at the All India Conference of Lawyers on Legal Education and Training held at New Delhi on 111. 1994, the then Chief Justice of India A.M. Ahmadi, after referring to the Report of the Law Commission, observed as follows:-

"If the standard of legal education in law schools is poor and if enrolment of such halfbaked untrained graduates is automatic, as is the position today, the burden has to be borne by the judiciary at all levels since they are, to use the expression of Shri Setalved, let loose on the Judiciary. The unbecoming scenes which are witnessed in courts are largely on account of lack of proper training in law and ethical values and the desire to make a fast buck. The justice delivery system depends on the quality of the Bar and, therefore, the Judiciary is vitally interested in the improvement of legal education in the country. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Bar, the Judiciary and the UGC must join hands to raise the standard of legal education in the country."

7. Even before the address made by the then Chief Justice, he was part of a committee of three Judges to submit a Report on Legal Education and Entry into Legal Profession. The said Committee was formed pursuant to the resolution of the Chief Justices Conference held in December 1993. The Committee elicited opinion of the various Chief Justices. While responding to the questionnaire sent by the Committee, some Chief Justices from various High Courts pointed out that the standard of teaching had gone down and there are no proper libraries and the subjects prescribed in the syllabus were out-dated and that sometimes teachers were assigned subjects in which they had no knowledge of specialisation. [See Indian Bar Review Vol. XXII (4) 1995].

8. Subsequently, the Conference of the Law Secretaries and Law Ministers working group on Legal Education was held in Bhubaneshwar during September 1995. The Law Ministers attending the conference expressed their concern and the deteriorating standards in legal education. They were of the opinion that successful strategy for improving legal education must take into account several elements listed out by them and one of the elements listed by them is found in their recommendations as Serial No. xv, which is follows:-

"Post-graduate courses in law should not be allowed to be taught either in morning / evening colleges or through correspondence courses. Such courses should not be allowed in institutions which did not have libraries that proposed latest books and periodicals in law and competent teachers and staff."

The proposals made by the Bhubaneshwar Conference came to be accepted by the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 011. 1995.

9. Lamenting on the existing state of legal education, the then Chairman of the Bar Council of India, in his introductory note to the Special Number on Legal Education of the Indian Bar Review, wrote as follows:-

"The Bar Council is now taking steps to weed out sub-standard institutions after i










































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top