The requirement for law degrees to be from recognized institutions is valid, and non-compliance results in ineligibility for enrolment as an Advocate.

. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. None appears for the Petitioner at the time of call.

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Odisha State Bar Council-Opposite Party No.1 is present.

3. Petitioner, in this writ petition, seeks to set aside the letter No.2906/12 dated 15th May, 2012 (Annexure-4) of the Odisha State Bar Council, Cuttack, whereby the following decision of the Enrolment Committee was communicated to him. The resolution reads thus:-“The application of Sri Deepak Kumar Patra is considered for enrolment. On verification of the certificates, it is found that, Mr. Patra has completed LL.B. Degree in 2005 from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, an un-approved Law College of Bar Council of India. He has taken admission in the college during the Session 1999 to 2002. Therefore, he is not coming under the purview of Bar Council of India Cir. No.04/dt.

27.05.2002 as well as this Council resolution dt.08 & 1-09.2001. The Bar Council of India in its letter dt.28.02.2011 has also informed that the approval of affiliation of Vivekananda Law College, Angul, has been // 2 // Page 2 of 3 declined. Considering the facts & circumstances of the matter the application of Sri Patra is rejected.”

Assailing the said letter rejecting the request of the Petitioner for enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 places on record a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8571 of 2013 ( Bar Council of India Vs. Rabi Sahu and another ), wherein, it is held as under:-

“7. Viewed thus, the rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid, as was held in the impugned order.

8. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the Division Bench was not justified in directing the enrolment of respondent No.1 as an Advocate, despite the fact that he secured his law degree from a college which was not recognized or approved by BCI.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.32506 of 2011.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”

4.1 He, therefore, submits that since the Petitioner passed out from Vivekananda Law College, Angul, which is neither a recognized nor affiliated to Bar Council of India, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted.

5. Since none appears for the Petitioner to pursue the matter and in view of the clear finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rabi Sahu (supra) , this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner is not entitled to be enrolled // 3 // as an Advocate under the Advocates Act , 1961. As such, I find no infirmity in the communication under Annexure-4.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

7. Case record in W.P.(C) No.32506 of 2011 called for reference, be returned to the concerned Section forthwith.