Sunil Bhaumik vs Council Of Tripura And Ors

Arindam Lodh, J

Challenge here is the decision of the Bar Council of Tripura rejecting the prayer of enrollment made by the petitioner, vide communication dated 23.02.2017, issued by the Secretary, Bar Council of Tripura, Agartala.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The petitioner entered into Tripura Government service on 16.11.1981. While in service, the petitioner obtained permission from his employer towards admission in LLB course [evening] in Tripura Government Law College, Agartala vide order No.F2(T-4) DAH/Estt/83/6099, dated 20.07.1996 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. He got admitted in Tripura Government Law College in the academic session 1996-1997 for pursuing three years LLB course in the academic sessions 1996-2000. The classes of Tripura Government Law College used to be held in the evening at its campus at Krishna Nagar, Agartala. The petitioner was posted at R.K.Nagar Farm complex, Khayerpur, Agartala. The petitioner had rendered his service most sincerely and diligently in course of study and there was no complaint whatsoever from the side of his employer since the law classes used to start at 6:00 pm and the distance being short between the office of the petitioner and the Law College, there was no difficulty to attend the law classes and complete the course as a regular student.

On attaining the age of superannuation from service, the petitioner had submitted necessary application on 04.02.2017 for admission and enrollment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act in the Bar Council of Tripura as per prescribed format enclosing all necessary documents. Surprisingly, the petitioner had received a communication dated 23.02.2017 made by the Secretary, Bar Council of Tripura whereby it was informed to the petitioner that his application was rejected in view of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Madras in WP(MD) No.3731/2011 [ P. Ramu Vrs. Secretary Bar Council of Tamil Nadu & Ors.],

2.2. The petitioner has challenged such rejection of his prayer for admission and enrollment under the Bar Council of Tripura as according to him the said rejection is illegal, arbitrary and suffers from non-application of mind.

2.3 The Bar Council of Tripura after receipt of the notice had submitted counter affidavit through its Secretary and stood by its decision reiterating the case of P. Ramu (Supra).

Mr. T. Datta Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Enrollment Committee of the Bar Council of Tripura was misdirected by the decision of the Madras High Court passed in the case of P.Ramu(supra). Learned counsel submitted that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are quite different than that of the case of P.Ramu(supra). In the case of P. Ramu, the Madras High Court had observed that many persons had entered into the profession by way of procuring law degrees fraudulently, in absentia, in the institution, which are 100 KMs away from their workplace, while rendering service in their organization as full time employees.

In the instant case, the petitioner got admitted in the Government Law College as a regular student after obtaining necessary permission from his employer. The learned counsel further contended that the classes were used to start at 6:00 pm much after the office hours. Both the Tripura Government Law College and the workplace of the petitioner are nearer to each other. Under those circumstances, according to the learned counsel, the Bar Council of Tripura had misconstrued the decision of the Madras High Court passed in the case of P. Ramu (supra) and the said case had no manner of application in the instant case.

On the other hand, Mr. S.M.Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the Bar Council of Tripura defended the action of the Bar Council of Tripura. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel submitted that the Bar Council of Tripura took its decision in view of the case of P. Ramu (supra).

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties in the lis and also have considered the submissions in the light of the instant case and the foundation of the case of P. Ramu (supra).

In the case in hand, the petitioner got admitted in the Tripura Government Law College as a regular student to pursue Bachelor of Law course. Indubitably, the classes of the LLB course at the relevant point of time used to start at 6:00 pm. The petitioner was accorded permission by his employer to continue to pursue his study after the office hours which was much later than that of the office hours and the distance being very little between his workplace and the Law College, it was very easy to attend the classes regularly. In the process, neither his official duty as Govt. employee nor his study as a regular student of LLB course was affected in any manner whatsoever.

We have meticulously perused the observation made by their Lordships of Madras High Court in the case of P. Ramu (supra). According to us, the facts of the instant case and the circumstances under which the petitioner had obtained the LLB degree are quite different from the circumstances delineated in the decision of P. Ramu (supra). After scrutiny of the records and having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner did not obtain his Law degree fraudulently and the petitioner has pursued his law course as a regular student under recognized Govt. College and there was no difficulty for the petitioner to render his service as full time employee in his pursuit to study law course.

The factors to be considered while admitting a person under roll of the Bar Council are that the college or university from which the person has obtained the Bachelor of Law degree must be recognized under the authority of law; in case of employees, the decision makers of the Council are to apply their minds in regard to possibility and feasibility of such person to pursue his/her study as regular student without causing hindrance to the concerned service and the distance of the Law College and the work place are also to be kept in mind. That apart, there must be necessary permission from employer.

In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Enrollment Committee and as well the respondents rejecting the application for enrollment of the petitioner have suffered from non-application of mind which is legally untenable and accordingly, the impugned order of the Bar Council of Tripura dated 21.02.2017, communicated vide No. No.BCT/F.2/SBC/ENROL/40/L/2017, dated 23.02.2017, is hereby set aside and quashed.

In the result, we hold that the petitioner is well-deserved of being admitted and enrolled as an Advocate under the Bar Council of Tripura and consequently, it is directed that the Bar Council of Tripura shall admit and enroll the name of the petitioner immediately within a period of one month from the date the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this judgment to the office of the Bar Council of Tripura.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.