The UGC has the power to define the minimum standards of instruction for the grant of any degree by any University, and the impugned regulation was not in compliance with the UGC regulations.

O R D E R

(Order made by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)

A.The Writ Petition:

This Writ Petition is filed for a declaration that Regulation 3.1 of the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University Ph.D. Regulations, 2020 as ultra vires the Constitution to the extent they prescribe possession of ‘Two Years’ Master’s Degree in law as eligibility criteria for admission to PhD. Degree in Law (Full-Time) and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to permit the petitioner to apply for Ph.D admission notification 2021-2022 dated

10.05.2021 and for such further or other orders.

B. The Case of the Petitioner:

2. The petitioner graduated in Law from Dr Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai, in May 2015. She completed her Post Graduation - LL.M. (Human Rights) Degree from Amity Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Amity University, New Delhi in the year 2016 with a good academic record of CGPA 8.08. She had cleared the National Eligibility Test for Assistant Professor (Law) in December, 2018 and has been working in the 1^st respondent university on contract basis from 01.07.2019.

2.1 In the year 2020, the 1^st respondent University framed Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University PhD Regulations, 2020. Clause 3.1 of the Regulations makes only those who are possessing a ‘Two Year LLM’ alone eligible for admission to PhD in the respondent University and the same reads as follows:

“3. Eligibility Criteria For Admission: 3.1. PhD Degree in Law(Full-Time) :

Candidate’s possessing a Two Years Master’s Degree in Law from any recognised university through regular full-time study having secured a minimum of 55% of marks in the aggregate or an equivalent grade in point scale wherever grading system is followed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

2.2 The 1^st respondent University also issued Notification 2021-2022 dated 10.05.2021, inviting applications from eligible candidates for Ph.D Research Programme against 110 vacancies. However, in view of the impugned regulations, the petitioner was not in a position to apply and hence the Writ Petition.

2.3 The University Grants Commission by the “Guidelines for Introduction of one-year LLM Degree Program, 2012” communicated vide letter dated 18.10.2013 bearing ref: UGC DO No.5-1/99 (CPP-II) the UGC had recognised the one year LLM programme, pursuant to which several Central and State Universities, National Law Schools and other premier Law Schools switched over to one year LLM Degree Course. It is valid even as per the Bar Council of India Legal Education (Post Graduate, Doctoral, Executive, Occasional, Clinical and other Continuing Education) Rules, 2020. Therefore, when the petitioner is eligible, the impugned regulations make her ineligible. The same is ultra vires and arbitrary.

C. The Case of the Respondents:

3. The 1^st respondent filed a counter affidavit resisting the writ petition. Paragraph No. 4 set out the syllabi of the one year and two year programmes and it is submitted that both programmes are not equal. The UGC Regulation permitting one year LLM Programme is only optional and not mandatory. The Bar Council of India regulations make it clear that one year Master Degree programs in Law shall remain operational and valid for temporary period. As per Clause-5 (b) of the Bar Council Regulations, the duration of LLM Degree shall be two years. Clause.6 seeks to abolish one year Master Degree and states that the same will be only valid upto the notification of the regulations. Therefore, in compliance of the Bar Council Rules, the present regulations are framed. It is only the 1^st respondent university which has the jurisdiction to decide upon equivalence of degrees even as per the UGC communication dated 19.07.2016. The present regulations are duly framed after approval of the syndicate and the Hon’ble Governor-Chancellor. Thus, the petitioner being ineligible, cannot seek admission.

D. The Stand of the Bar Council :

4. Considering the nature of the contentions, we requested Mr S.R.

Raghunathan, the Learned Standing C