AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Manikumar, J.—In W.P. No. 17992 of 2009, the Petitioners have sought for a writ of declaration, declaring Rule 28(b) of Bar Council
of India Part-IV MLJ-CIVIL-26-5-2011 Rules of Legal Education Schedule III, as arbitrary and consequently. Clause 4 of ""Information
Brochure"" issued by Sri Balaji Vidyalaya Society, Puducherry, fourth Respondent, for the year 2009-10 as ultra vires. The consequential prayer
stated supra is challenged in other writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 20114, 20702 and 20721 of 2009.
As pleadings and arguments are common, all the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
The Petitioners are all graduates. They have applied for admission to three year law degree course in Sri Balaji Vidyalaya Society, Puducherry,
the fourth Respondent herein, for pursuing their law degree. The 1st Petitioner, on behalf of other Petitioners in W.P. No. 17992 of 2009, has
submitted that earlier, she filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 26277 of 2008, seeking admission oh the ground that there were vacancies in the fourth
Respondent-College. The said writ petition came to be dismissed on 10.11.2008 for the reason that relaxation cannot be granted in the matter of
minimum qualification. However, at that time, she was not aware that there was relaxation for the candidates belonging to SC/ST communities and
Other Backward Communities. Other Petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition.
According to the Petitioners, as per the Central and State Government norms, relaxation is given to the candidates belonging to SC/ST
communities. Those belonging to OBC are also treated on par with SC/ST candidates and therefore, such relaxation of 5 years in age and 5
marks, ought to have been given for admission to three law degree course for the candidates belonging to OBC communities. Prescription of age
limit of 30 years has been inserted recently in Paragraph 28(b) of the Bar Council of India Part-IV Rules of Legal Education Schedule III.
According to the Petitioners, it allows relaxation of five years for those belonging to SC/ST or other Backward Communities also.
Mr. R. Gunaraj, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, has no power or authority to fix the
eligibility criteria for admission to Law Degree course and any condition imposed by them is beyond their jurisdiction. According to him, Section
7(h) of the Bar Council of India Act gives power to the Council to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in
consultation with the Universities and State Bar Councils, which would relate to the curriculum and standard of teaching and does not relate to
prescription of age for admission to law degree course. For the above said reasons, he submitted that Rule 28(b) of Bar Council of India Part-IV
Rules of Legal Education, Schedule III and Clause 4 of ""Information Brochure"" issued by the fourth Respondent-College for the year 2009-10 are
arbitrary, ultra vires and null and void.
The Registrar, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, third Respondent herein, has filed a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that Sri Balaji
Law School, fourth Respondent is affiliated to the University. The 4th Respondent-college has issued an Information Brochure for the academic
year 2009-2010, specifying the eligibility criteria and other norms and procedure prescribed for admission to the 5 years/3 years LL.B. course in
the said college. The eligibility criteria notified by the fourth Respondent-College for admission for the 3 year LL.B. degree course is as follows.
A pass in the Bachelor''s degree course of any recognised university with not less than 45% marks in the qualifying examination and
Candidates should not have attained more than 30 years of age as on 1.7.2009. Age relaxation is applicable by 5 years for SC/ST candidates.
The Regulation of the Respondent-university for admission to the 3 year LL.B. course is as follows.
Three Years LL.B. Degree
(a) In order to be eligible for admission, a candidate should have passed any bachelor''s degree from a recognized university or possess such
academic qualification which is considered equivalent to bachelor''s degree by the Pondicherry University and the Bar Council of India. A
candidate with a bachelor''s degree obtained after pursuing private study or through distance education is eligible to apply for this programme only
if he has underwent a regular course of study in a duly recognized school up to Higher Secondary course (+2). In case of candidates possessing
bachelor''s degree as stipulated above and holding post graduate degrees as well, only the degree at the bachelor level will be considered for the
purpose of eligibility for admission.
(b) Further, the candidates applying for admission to this programme should have secured 45 per cent of marks after excluding the marks in the
language subjects in the qualifying examination. However, in case of candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, a mere pass in
the qualifying examination is enough.
The third Respondent-University has further submitted that all the Petitioners have applied for 3 years law degree course in the 4th Respondent
college for the academic year 2009-2010 and the same were rejected by the 4th Respondent college, since they do not possess the minimum of
45% marks in the degree course. Except the Petitioner in W.P. No. 20702 of 2009, all other Petitioners were over-aged, i.e, they have crossed
the age of 30 years prescribed by the University.
The third Respondent has further submitted that mere availability of seats on account of vacancies cannot be a ground for seeking admission,
when the Petitioners do not satisfy the eligibility criteria for admission. The third Respondent has specifically denied the contention of the Petitioners
that they should be treated on par with SC/ST candidates for relaxation of age and marks, as they belong to the OBC community. The University
has submitted that the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Respondents cannot be termed as unconstitutional or irrational.
The third Respondent has further submitted mat the Bar Council of India has introduced paragraph 28(b) of the abovesaid Schedule viz., the
age criteria for LL.B. 3 year course from the academic year 2009 - 2010 with 5 years age relaxation for SC/ST students. This relaxation cannot
be extended to the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes. According to the third Respondent, the fifth Respondent has the absolute
power to fix the eligibility and qualification criteria for admission to LL.B. degree course. As per the eligibility criteria, 45% of the marks in the
qualifying examination, is compulsory for admission to the 3 year LL.B. degree course and in case of SC/ST candidates mere pass in the qualifying
examination is sufficient. As the Petitioners do not satisfy the stipulated eligibility condition, they are not eligible for admission to the 3 year LL.B.
course. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
Part-IV of the Bar Council of India Rules deals with rules on standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for the purpose of
enrollment as Advocate and inspection of Universities for recognizing its degree in law, under Sections 7(1)(h) and (i), 24(1)(c)(iii), and (iiia),
49(1)(af),(ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 made by the Bar Council of India in consultation with Universities and State Bar Councils.
Preamble to the Rule itself would make it abundantly clear that the Bar Council of India has got the authority and jurisdiction to prescribe the
standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law.
Chapter II of the above said Rules deals with Standards of Professional Legal Education and as per Rule 7, the Bar Council of India may from
time to time, stipulate the minimum percentage of marks not below 45% of the total marks, in case of general category applicants and 40% of the
total marks, in case of SC and ST applicants, to be obtained for the qualifying examination, such as +2 Examination in case of Integrated Five
Years'' course or Degree course in any discipline for Three years'' LL.B. course, for the purpose of applying for and getting admitted into a Law
Degree Programme of any recognized University in either of the streams. Proviso to the said Rule states that such a minimum qualifying marks shall
not automatically entitle a person to get admission into an institution, but only shall entitle the person concerned to fulfill other institutional criteria
notified by the institution concerned or by the government concerned from time to time to apply for admission.
Paragraph 28 of Schedule in of Part IV of the abovesaid Rules states as follows:
Age on admission: (a) Subject to the condition stipulated by a University on this behalf and the high degree of professional commitment
required, the maximum age for seeking admission into a stream of integrated Bachelor of law degree program, is limited to twenty years in case of
general category of applicants and to twenty two years in case of applicants from SC, ST and other Backward communities.
(b) Subject to the condition stipulated by a University, and the general social condition of the applicants seeking legal education belatedly, the
maximum age for seeking admission into a stream of Three Year Bachelor Degree Course in Law, is limited to thirty years with right of the
University to give concession of 5 further year for the applicant belonging to SC or ST or any other Backward Community.
14, Paragraph 28(b) of the said Rules has been approved in a meeting, held on 14.9.2008, vide resolution No. 110 of 2008 and that the said rule
prescribes the maximum age limit in admission to law degree courses, reserving the right to the University to give concession to the candidates
belonging to SC/ST or other Backward Class Communities. Regulation of the third Respondent-University, prescribing admission to the three year
law degree courses, in consonance with the Bar Council of India Rules on Legal Education, is binding on the fourth Respondent-College, in view
of the affiliation with the University. The Regulation of the third Respondent-university for admission to the 3 year LL.B. course is reproduced,
which reads as follows.
Three Years LL.B. Degree
Eligibility for admission: (a) In order to be eligible for admission, a candidate should have passed any bachelor''s degree from a recognized
university or possess such academic qualification which is considered equivalent to bachelor''s degree by the Pondicherry University and the Bar
Council of India. A candidate with a bachelor''s degree obtained after pursuing private study or through distance education is eligible to apply for
this programme only if he has underwent a regular course of study in a duly recognized school up to Higher Secondary course (+2). In case of
candidates possessing bachelor''s degree as stipulated above and holding post graduate degrees as well, only the degree at the bachelor level will
be considered for the purpose of eligibility for admission.
(b) Further, the candidates applying for admission to this programme should have secured 45 per cent of marks after excluding the marks in the
language subjects in the qualifying examination. However, in case of candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, a mere pass in
the qualifying examination is enough.
In M. Santhosh Antony Vareed v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (2009) 8 MLJ 1677: 2010 (1) CWC 43, the
prospectus issued for 3 year B.L. Degree Course 2009-2010 by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, was challenged and
consequently, a direction was sought for, to the said University to accept the application of the Petitioner therein for 3 year B.L. Course admission
by relaxing the instructions specified in Column No. 2(iii) and to condone the excess 8 days. After considering the power of the Bar Council of
India for prescribing minimum qualification in law, as provided in Section 49 of the Advocates Act and after considering the catena of decisions, a
learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there is no illegality in prescribing a maximum age for admission to law
degree courses.
In the prospectus for admission to three year law degree, for title academic year 2009-10 under paragraph 2(iii), it is specifically stated that,
A candidate should not have completed 30 years of Age as on 1.6.2009, (i.e, the candidate must have born on or after 1.6.1979). In case of
candidates belonging to SC/ST communities, the maximum age limit is 35 years. (i.e., the candidate must have born on or after 1.6.1974)"". In the
above reported case, in M. Santhosh Antony Vareed v. Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (supra) has strictly adhered to the
instructions of the Bar Council of India, with regard to age on admission and other governing matters.
In State of Tamil Nadu and Another Vs. S.V. Bratheep (Minor) and Others, prescribed guidelines for admission to degree programmes in
engineering. Para 1.1 of the guidelines prescribed that the minimum qualification for admission should be ""a pass in the 10+2 (senior secondary)
examination with a minimum aggregate of 60% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics obtained in a single sitting"". Para 1.3 provided that
all States/Union Territories should conduct common entrance tests in subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at +2 level. It further
provided that, ""The minimum marks for eligibility for the entrance test, need not be prescribed in the case of degree courses and all students who
have passed the qualifying examination may be permitted to appear in the entrance test"" The Higher Education Department in the State of Tamil
Nadu issued G. Os., dated 29.6.2002 and 13.2.2003, prescribing qualifications or minimum eligible marks for SC/ST as mere pass, most
backward at 50% average marks in the related subjects, backward at 55% average marks in the related subjects and other classes at 60%
average marks in the related subjects. Thus, the State prescribed qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the related
subjects, which were higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. Writ petitions were filed before this
Court, seeking for a direction to quash the said G. Os., insofar as the Respondents therein were concerned and to direct the Appellants therein and
others to consider their admission to engineering colleges, without reference to the minimum eligible marks prescribed by the State Government.
After considering the power of the respective councils or University in prescribing minimum marks for admission to the courses and the scope of
Schedule VII List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court
in Dr Preeti Srivastava and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, the Apex Court, at Paragraphs 9, 10, 12 and 13, held as follows:
Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to form an exclusivity in the matter
of admission but if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the
standards fixed by the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union
of India or any other authority functioning under it. Therefore, what is to be seen in the present case is whether the prescription of the standards
made by the State Government is in any way adverse to, or lower than, the standards fixed by the AICTE, It is no doubt true that the AICTE
prescribed two modes of admission - One is merely dependent on the qualifying examination and the other dependent upon the marks obtained at
the Common Entrance Test. The Appellant in the present case prescribed the qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the
related subjects which is higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. If higher minimum is prescribed
by the State Government than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the
AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On the other hand, if we proceed on the basis that the norms fixed by the
AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination, the additional test made applicable is the
common entrance test by the State Government. If we proceed to take the standard fixed by the AICTE to be the common entrance test, then the
prescription made by the State Government of having obtained certain marks higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be
eligible to participate in the common entrance test is in addition to the common entrance test. In either event, the streams proposed by the AICTE
are not belittled in any manner. The manner in which the High Court has proceeded is that what has been prescribed by the AICTE is inexorable
and that that minimum alone should be taken into consideration and no other standard could be fixed even the higher as stated by this Court in
Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. (supra), case. It is no doubt true as noticed by this Court in Adhiyaman''s case that there may be situations
when a large number of seats may fall vacant on account of the higher standards fixed. The standards fixed should always be realistic which are
attainable and are within the reach of the candidates. It cannot be said that the prescriptions by the State Government in addition to those of
AICTE in the present case are such which are not attainable or which are not within the reach of the candidates who seek admission for
engineering colleges. It is not very high percentage of marks that has been prescribed as minimum of 60% downwards, but definitely higher than
the mere pass marks. Excellence in higher education is always insisted upon by series of decisions of this Court including Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v.
State of MP. (supra), case. If higher minimum marks have been prescribed, it would certainly add to the excellence in the matter of admission of
the students in higher education.
Argument advanced on behalf of the Respondents is that the purpose of fixing norms by the AICTE is to ensure uniformity with extended
access of educational opportunity and such norms should not be tinkered with by the State in any manner. We are afraid, this argument ignores the
view taken by this Court in several decisions including Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. (supra), case that the State can always fix a further
qualification or additional qualification to what has been prescribed by the AICTE and that proposition is indisputable. The mere fact that there are
vacancies in the colleges would not be a matter, which would go into the question of fixing the standard of education. Therefore, it is difficult to
subscribe to the view that once they are qualified under the criteria fixed by the AICTE, they should be admitted even if they fall short of the
criteria prescribed by the State. The scope of the relative entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution have to be understood in the manner
as stated in the Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. (supra), case and/therefore, we need not further elaborate in this case or consider
arguments to the contrary such as application of occupied theory no power could be exercised under Entry 25 of List III as they would not arise
for consideration.
...Prescription of standards in education is always accepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by the bodies recognising the colleges or
granting affiliation, like AICTE or the University. If in exercise of such power the prescription had been made, it cannot be said that the whole
matter has been foreclosed.
...it is permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what
had been prescribed by the AICTE and what has been prescribed by the State and considered by us is not contrary to the same but is only
complementary or supplementary to it.
Reading of the above said judgment, would make it abundantly clear that the respective councils, like AICTE, MCI, BCI, or the Universities,
have powers to prescribe standards of education, whether it be Engineering, Medical, Dental or Law, as the case may be.
The power of the Bar Council of India to prescribe standards of Education, including the age limit, has already been upheld. The Bar Council
of India is conferred with the powers to prescribe age and minimum qualification marks for admission to three law degree course. Paragraph 28(b)
of the above said Rules relating to legal education and Clause 4 of ""Information Brochure"" issued by the fourth Respondent for the year 2009-10,
which is affiliated with the third Respondent-University, cannot be said to be ultra vires of the Constitution of India. There is no no merits in the writ
petitions and the relief sought for, are wholly cannot be granted.
In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.