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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 120

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
G. Bappudurai
Versus
The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University & Another
Writ Petition No. 3513 of 2014 & M.P. No. 1 of 2014
Decided on : 23-01-2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Lakshminarayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, V.M.G. Ramakannan, R2, S.Y. Masood, Advocates.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of completing the essential qualifications in the prescribed sequence for admission to a three year degree program in Law, as per the Bar Council of India Regulations and Rules of Legal Education.

Headnote:

Eligibility Criteria - Admission to Law Degree Course - Bar Council of India Regulations - Rules of Legal Education - [10+2, 11+1, 10 years of schooling, 2 years of Higher Secondary Course, 3 years of Bachelor's Degree Course] - The court discussed the Bar Council of India Regulations and Rules of Legal Education, emphasizing the sequence of education required for admission to a three year degree program in Law. The court highlighted the importance of completing the essential qualifications in the prescribed sequence and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Annamalai University vs. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department [2009 (4) SCC 590] on the recognition of degrees obtained through Open Universities.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice questioning his eligibility for admission to a three year B.L. Degree Course due to the sequence in which he completed his education.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the petitioner's contention of estoppel and emphasized the importance of completing the essential qualifications in the prescribed sequence for admission to the Law Degree Course.

Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's fulfillment of the eligibility criteria for admission to the three year B.L. Degree Course and the impact of completing education in a non-prescribed sequence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, and declared that he cannot enroll as an Advocate or enter into the Judicial Service.

Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, setting aside the notice of the University, but declaring that the petitioner cannot either enroll as Advocate or enter into the Judicial Service.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, calling upon him to show cause as to whether or not he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for admission to a three year B.L. Degree Course in the Government Law College, Tirunelveli.

2. I have heard Mr. V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V.M.G.Ramakannan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. S.Y.Masood, learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. The petitioner passed the X Standard in April 1997. He joined the Higher Secondary Course and completed the Course in March 1999. But he failed in one subject.

4. Without clearing the arrear paper and thereby completing the Higher Secondary Course, the petitioner joined the Bachelor's Degree Course in Arts, in the Alagappa University, under the Distance Education Program. In January 2010, the petitioner obtained a degree from the Alagappa University in Bachelor of Arts in History.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared for the arrear paper in the Higher Secondary Examination in March 2010 and cleared it.

6. During the academic year 2010-11, the petitioner applied for admission to a three year Degree Course in Law and he was allotted to the Government Law College, Tirunelveli, by the first respondent University, in the counselling held on 14.09.2010. He was also issued with a certificate of eligibility to join the three year B.L. Degree Course for the academic year 2010-11.

7. During the period 2010-13, the petitioner completed the three year Law Degree successfully, from the Government Law College, Tirunelveli. He was issued with a Provisional Certificate on 19.09.2013 by the University. It appears that the petitioner also paid the necessary fees towards the Advocates Welfare Fund, Group Insurance Scheme, Resumption Charges and Enrollment Certificate fee.

8. However, it appears that a good samaritan sent a letter to the University informing them that the petitioner was admitted to the three year Law Degree, without having completed the eligibility criteria of 10 years of schooling, followed by 2 years of Higher Secondary Course and 3 years of Bachelor's Degree Course. Immediately, the University issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to whether he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for joining three year B.L. Degree Course. Though the petitioner sent a reply on 16.12.2013, he has also come up with the above writ petition challenging the show cause notice.

9. The contention of Mr. V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner is basically two fold namely:-

(a) that the petitioner had in fact fulfilled the eligibility criteria in the year 2010-11 for joining the three year B.L. Degree Course; and

(b) that the University is estopped from questioning his eligibility, after having issued the eligibility certificate way back on 21.09.2010 and after having allotted him to the Tirunelveli Government Law College.

10. I shall first take up the second contention, since it is capable of being disposed of easily. This contention relates to estoppel.

11. It is true that the University issued a recognition-cum- eligibility certificate on 21.09.2010, to the effect that the petitioner was eligible for admission to the first year of the B.L. Degree Course. But, there is nothing on record to show that the University was aware of and conscious of the fact that the petitioner completed the Higher Secondary Course only after securing a degree from the Alagappa University. As I have pointed out earlier, the petitioner completed SSLC in April 1997 and joined the Higher Secondary Course in June, 1997. Though he completed the Higher Secondary Course in March 1999, he failed in Mathematics. But, he took advantage of the stream of Distance Education offered by the Alagappa University and joined the degree course even without passing Higher Secondary Course. In the examination conducted in M






































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top