Karnataka High Court

The Chairman vs Pravin Kishore Prasad on 15 February, 2022

Bench: S.Sujatha, Ravi V Hosmani

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI

               W.A.No.1069/2021 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN :

THE CHAIRMAN/THE SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL
KGID BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001             ...APPELLANT

                  (BY SRI G.NATARAJ, ADV.)

AND :

PRAVIN KISHORE PRASAD
S/O NAWAL KISHORE PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.H - 71, DIAMOND DISTRICT,
150, OLD AIRPORT ROAD
KODIHALLI, HAL II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560008                           ...RESPONDENT

            (BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADV.)

     THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER BEING PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.14924/2020 BY
HE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.04.2021 AND ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                            -2-



                    JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal is filed against the order

dated 19.4.2021 passed in W.P.No.14924/2020 by the

learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by

the respondent herein has been allowed quashing the

order dated 25.9.2020 issued by the appellant.

2. Pursuant to the application submitted by the

respondent under Section 25 of the Advocates Act,

1961, before the appellant - Karnataka State Bar

Council seeking enrolment, the order dated 25.9.2020

(Annexure-D) has been passed rejecting the said

application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the

respondent preferred the writ petition.

3. It was contended by the respondent that

while he was working as the Commissioner of Income

Tax, he was posted to Bengaluru between 2002 and

2014. He took admission for LL.B., course in Dr.Ram

Manohar Lohia College of law, affiliated to Bengaluru

University, in 2004 and completed the course in 2007.

The appellant had rejected the application without any

valid ground. On hearing both the sides, the learned

Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. Hence, this

writ appeal.

4. The primary contention of the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant is that the

respondent was in the Government service at the time of

pursuing the LL.B., course in the year 2004-2007.

Though permission was obtained from the Chief

Commissioner of Income Tax to prosecute the three

years' LL.B., course, he was not permitted to attend the

College continuously to achieve 70% attendance as

required under the Legal Education Rules, 2008.

5. Placing reliance on the judgment of the

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of

B. Balakrishna Pillai v. The Bar Council of India

and another, in W.P.(MD) No.7936/2006, decided on

10.1.2011, the learned counsel argued that no

candidate is entitled for enrolment until and unless the

candidate satisfies that he/she had underwent the

regular course with the regular attendance, the State

Bar Council or the Bar Council of India is empowered to

take appropriate action, even to remove the lawyer from

the rolls. Thus, the Enrolment Committee has rightly

taken the action of rejecting the candidature of the

respondent for enrolment. The order of the learned

Single Judge is contrary to Section 24 read with Rule

1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules with regard to

the criteria of fulfilling the study course. The

respondent having failed to satisfy the council for

achieving 70% attendance, the Enrolment Committee

was fully justified in rejecting the application. It was

argued that these aspects of the matter not being

properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge in a

right perspective, the same calls for interference by this

Court.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellant and perused the material on record.

7. It is evident that pursuant to the permission

granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

conveyed through the Deputy Commissioner of Income

Tax, the respondent has completed the three years

LL.B., course. The sole ground for rejection of the

request for enrolment made by the respondent was that

he has not attended the College continuously to achieve

70% attendance as required under the Legal Education

Rules, 2008, as he was working in the Income Tax

Department during the relevant period.

8. We are astound by the aforesaid reasoning of

the appellant. We are of the considered view that as

long as the Attendance Certificate is issued by the

College which was recognized and affiliated to a

University, no rejection could be made merely on

surmises and conjectures unless the said Attendance

Certificate is disputed by the University or the

Department has raised an objection in this regard. As

could be seen, no such dispute/objection has been

raised by the concerned authorities. Permitting the

candidate to appear for the examination by using the

Admission Card issued by the University, would

indicate that the said candidate has fulfilled all the

required criteria for appearing in the examination in

terms of the Rules applicable at the relevant point of

time. There is a presumption of eligibility of the

candidate. No other authority much less the Bar

Council can question the validity of such Attendance

Certificate.

9. In the judgment referred to by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant in the case of

B. Balakrishna Pillai, supra, no doubt the learned

Single Judge has observed that unless the applicant

satisfies that he had pursued the regular course with

the regular attendance, the State Bar Council or the Bar

Council of India is empowered to take appropriate

action, even to remove the lawyer from the rolls. There

is no cavil on this proposition, but the observation made

by the learned Single Judge inasmuch as "it cannot be

contended that merely because a University or the

College has given the Attendance Certificate, the Bar

Council should have refrained from examining the

veracity of the same and find out whether the applicant

has satisfied the mandatory requirement as to whether,

he has put in the required attendance", cannot come to

the aid of the appellant in view of the Full Bench

decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at

Madras in the case of P.Raji and others v. the

Secretary, Bar Council of Tamilnadu and

Puducherry, in W.P.No.44242/2016 and connected

matters, decided on 23.7.2018. It is beneficial to

quote the relevant paragraphs of the said decision,

which reads thus;

"58. We are also of the view that once a recognized university or a recognized board issues a certificate, there is a presumption of eligibility of the candidate to be conferred the certificate. It is not for any other authority to question the certificate on the ground of ineligibility to obtain the certificate, until and unless the certificate is cancelled by an appropriate authority and/or by a Court of law. To hold otherwise would be to open the pandora's box, for years later certificates might be questioned on grounds such as inadequate attendance, failure to clear internal test examinations and the like and it would be impossible for candidates possessing the degree and/or certificate to adduce cogent materials and/or evidence to satisfy those questioning the certificates.

59. In view of the observations above, we hold that candidates who have obtained the Three Year LLB Degree from a University established by statute, recognized by the University Grants Commission, approved affiliated Centre of Legal Education/ Departments of the recognized University as approved by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment, after graduating from Universities established by statute by prosecuting regular Bachelor's Degree courses, shall not be refused enrolment. Once a degree is found to be authentic, it is not for the Bar Council to go behind the degree and enquire into the eligibility of the candidates to take admission in the University."

10. In view of the said Full Bench decision,

reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant on the judgment of the learned Single Judge

in the case of B. Balakrishna Pillai, supra,, has no

applicability.

- 10 -

11. Having considered the Attendance Certificate

issued by the recognized College - Dr.Ram Manohar

Lohia College of law, affiliated to Bengaluru University,

in the light of the law enunciated by the Full Bench of

the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in

P.Raji, supra, the writ Court has rightly allowed the