1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

WRIT PETITION Nos.5200; 4460; 8749 and 7424 of 2020

COMMON ORDER:

These batch of Writ Petitions are filed by young

advocates, who have taken All India Bar Exam-XIV, which is

conducted by the Bar Council of India-1^st respondent through

the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. Since similar questions

and facts are involved this Court has taken up all the Writ

Petitions together.

This Court has heard Sri Solomon Raju in W.P.No.5200

of 2020 since pleadings are completed in this Writ Petition.

Sri Ravi Kondaveeti and Sri Kilaru Nithin Krishna are the

learned counsels for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4460 of 2020

and 8749 of 2020 respectively. They argued in similar lines

in support of the arguments advanced by Sri Solomon Raju.

All the petitioners are similarly placed.

For the respondent Bar Council of India, Sri Kunchem

Maheswara Rao appeared and for the Bar Council of Andhra

Pradesh Sri G. Venkata Reddy appeared.

The petitioners are law graduates. They have appeared

for the All India Bar Exam-XIV, which was held in the year

2019. After the examination was held in September, 2019 the

impugned order was published in the website of the All India

Bar Council stating that the candidates belonging to nine

centers viz., Visakhapatnam-CC 15; Bhopal-CC 35; Jabalpur-

2

CC 36; Allahabad-CC 54; Allahabad-CC 55; Allahabad-CC 56;

Allahabad-CC 57 and Allahabad-CC 58, will have to take

examination afresh without submitting any examination fee.

The grievance of the present set of petitioners is about

the center in Visakhapatnam. The results of the candidates

of this Centre were withheld. They have questioned the said

notification on various grounds alleging that it is illegal,

irrational, in violation of principles of natural justice etc. It

transpires that as the Bar Council of India received intimation

that large scale malpractices were conducted in nine centers,

the results of the exam in these centers were cancelled. This

is challenged.

Sri Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners

argues that there is no definition of ‘examination malpractice’

in the Advocates Act. He also points out that it is open book

examination, which is being conducted. Therefore, it is his

contention that there is no proof to show that the present set

of petitioners have indulged in any malpractice. He also

argues that behind the back of the petitioners some enquiry

has been purported to have been done and the Bar Council of

India is relying upon some enquiry said to have been

conducted. Learned counsel points out that no details are

furnished of this enquiry. Even the minutes, which are filed

by the Bar Council of India, are questioned by the learned

counsel for the petitioners stating that the same are

3

incomplete. It is his contention that unless and until specific

cases of malpractice are pointed out the petitioners cannot be

deprived of their right to have their examination results

declared. Relying upon I.A.No.2 of 2020 he has filed with list

of declared candidates, learned counsel argues that some

candidates from Visakhapatnam city were declared passed.

Therefore, he states that it is a clear case of discrimination

between two set of people. He points out that the center in

GITAM is only center in Visakhapatnam and as the

candidates from Andhra Pradesh are declared selected, the

petitioners have been discriminated again. Relying on the

case in Sanatan Gauda v Berhampur University and

Others learned counsel argues that the petitioners have right

in view of the conduct of the respondents to get their results

declared. He also relies upon Amarjeet Jeena v Council of

Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and others in

support of his contention.

Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.4460 of 2020 also argues that it is an open book

examination that is being conducted and that there were CC