Rajasthan High Court
Maharishi Dayanand Law College vs Commissioner, Department Of ... on 1 October, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14677/2020
1. Anand Sharma S/o Sh. Harish Chand Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of 1814, Govind Rav Ji Ka
Rasta, Chandpol Bazar Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Moti Shankar Gupta, Aged
About 23 Years, Resident Of 9, Khoh, Rajgarh, Alwar
(Raj.)
3. Nidhan Acharya S/o Sh. Yogesh Acharya, Aged About 21
Years, Resident Of 703, Acharyon Ki Haveli, Acharyon Ka
Rasta, Ward No. 74, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
College Education, Block-Iv, Registered Office- Dr. S.
Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur-302006.
2. University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dean, Registered
Office - Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Rajasthan University
Campus, Talvandi, Jaipur- 302004
3. Chairman, Maharishi Dayanand Law College, Barfkhana,
Jawahar Nagar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302004
4. Bar Council Of India (Bci), Through Its Secretary,
Registered Office - 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110002
----Respondents
Connected With]
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14736/2020
Maharishi Dayanand Law College, Barf Khana, Jawahar Nagar
Road, Jaipur - 302004 Through Its Principal
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner, Department Of College Education, Block-
Iv, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal
(2 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan-India)
2. The University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg,
Jaipur, Through Its Registrar.
3. Bar Council Of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002 Through Its
Secretary
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate,
through VC with
Ms. Harshita Sharma
Mr. Anmol Vyas
Mr. Aditya Sharma
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
Reserved on : 28/09/2021
Pronounced on : 01/10/2021
1. The petitioner No.1 to 3 herein belong to category of
Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and have secured 43.47%,
44.25% and 42.33% marks respectively in their graduation.
2. For admission in LL.B. three year course, a candidate is
required to secure minimum 45% marks in graduation.
3. The Commissionrate of College Education, State of Rajasthan
issued an admission policy 2019-20, according to which, the
candidates belonging from SC/ST/OBC/MBC and EWS would be
given relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks for admission in the
law course.
4. After promulgation of the policy, the petitioners considering
themselves to be eligible for admission in law course applied for
and were granted admission by the Maharishi Dayanand Law
College (respondent No.3).
(3 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
5. According to the petitioners, they disclosed every relevant
fact, including the marks secured in graduation when the
respondent - College admitted them in the LL.B. Course. It is the
assertion of the petitioners that according to admission policy
promulgated by the State, they were entitled for 5% relaxation in
the minimum qualifying marks and hence, they were enrolled for
LL.B. Course.
6. Pursuant to the admission given by the respondent College,
the petitioners deposited requisite fees and pursued the course.
7. When the petitioners submitted their examination forms for
appearing in the final examination of the first year, the Rajasthan
University (to which the College - respondent No.3 is affiliated) did
not issue their admission cards.
8. Upon queries being made by the petitioners, their College
informed that the University has not allowed the petitioners to
take the examination as they having secured less than 45% marks
in graduation be admitted in the law course.
9. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, the
petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, seeking
direction to the respondents to regularize their admission and to
permit them to complete the law course.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly apprised the Court
about the requisite facts and then, argued that the petitioners had
disclosed all facts based on which the respondent No.3 - College
admitted them in three years law course. He emphasised that the
same was done in light of the admission policy of the State
Government, which clearly provided that the students belonging to
EWS category shall be entitled for 5% relaxation in minimum
qualifying marks.
(4 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
11. Learned counsel argued that though the petitioners were
given admission by the respondent College but nevertheless they
were enrolled by the University and hence, the respondents
cannot take away their right of pursuing the LL.B. Course and
leave them in lurch, particularly when the admission policy of the
State Government considers them to be eligible for pursuing law
course.
12. Learned counsel argued that their College had issued letter
to the University and State Government and sought clarification
from them, however, no response was given by the State
Government. And, when the petitioners underwent Ist year
course, the respondents restrained them from appearing in the
examination solely on the basis of the communication dated
29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India.
13. It was argued by learned counsel that the
order/communication dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council
of India cannot take away petitioners' right, which have flown to
them pursuant to EWS reservation accorded by the State
Government and by virtue of the admission policy of 2019-2020.
14. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel
placed reliance upon the following judgments :
(i) Prahlad Kumar Vs. University of Raj., reported in 1985 SCC
Online Raj. 283;
(ii) Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur, reported in
(1989) 1 SCC 399 and
(iii) Sangeeta Shrivastava Vs. Prof. U.N. Singh, 1979 SCC Online
Del 202.
15. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the
respondent - University argued that the petitioners are ineligible
to get admission in the law course and merely because the
respondent - College has given them admission, they can neither
(5 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
claim any equity nor can they continue with the course, as their
admission per-se was contrary to law.
16. Learned senior counsel invited Court's attention towards
following Note appended with the admission policy of 2019-20 :-
"uksV % ckj dkWafly vkWQ bf.M;k ds fu;e ekU; gksaxsa A"
17. He argued that the mandate of the State Government can
govern percentage of reservation, applicable fee and age etc.,
however, the same cannot override the statutory provision in
relation to educational qualification, which lies strictly within the
domain of the Bar Council of India.
18. Court's attention was invited towards the order dated
29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India in order to justify its
stand that the petitioners are not eligible.
19. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the
petitioners are not eligible and the State's policy cannot be read as
a statute, more so when the statutory body - Bar Council of India
has not granted any relaxation to EWS category students in the
minimum qualifying marks.
20. Learned counsel cited judgment dated 14.08.2019 rendered
by the Principal seat in case of Amarjeet Kaur Vs. Jai Narayan
Vyas University & Ors. (SBCWP No.3500/2019), particularly para
No.16 thereof, which reads thus :
"16. It is pertinent to note that the standard of legal
education in the Country is regulated by Bar Council of
India, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of
Section 4 of the Act of 1961. As a matter of fact, the
recognition to the University whose degree
in law shall be qualification for enrollment is also granted by
the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India Rules of
Legal Education framed in exercise of the power conferred
under the Act of 1961, defines the recognized University and
also makes provisions regarding the eligibility for admission
to the professional law courses, minimum marks in
(6 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
qualifying examination for admission in such courses, as also
the academic standards and the course to be studied etc. In
the considered opinion of this Court, the norms laid down for
regulating the admission to LL.B. professional courses
cannot be relaxed even by the recognized University and
thus, the condition of the minimum qualifying marks for
admission to Integrated Five Years' Law Course and Three
Years' LL.B. Course, has to be strictly adhered to and
nobody can be permitted to apply for getting admitted into
said courses by relaxing the eligibility criteria prescribed."
21. Heard.
22. Before deliberating further, it would be worthwhile to have an
appraisal of statutory position :-
As per Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 ("the Act
of 1961"), the Bar Council of India is responsible to promote legal
education and to lay down standards of such education in
consultation with the Universities in India imparting such
education and the State Bar Councils.
Section 49(1)(af) empowers the Bar Council to make rules
prescribing the minimum qualifications required for admission to a
course of Degree in Law in any recognized University. Rule 7 of
the Bar Council of India Rules for Legal Education, 2008,
prescribes minimum marks in qualifying examination for
admission. Accordingly, Bar Council is empowered to prescribe
minimum percentage of marks not below 45% of the total marks
in case of General category applicants, 42% for OBC category and
40% marks in case of SC/ST applicants in the qualifying
examination for the purpose of applying for and getting admission
in a Law Degree Program of any recognized University. It is
further provided that such minimum qualifying marks shall not
automatically entitle a student/candidate to get admission into an
institution but shall only entitle the student/candidate concerned
to fulfill other institutional criteria notified by the respective
(7 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
institution or by the Government concerned from time to time to
apply for admission. It is not disputed before this Court that
presently, the minimum marks in qualifying examination
prescribed by the Bar Council of India for admission to LL.B.
Course is 45%.
23. The law governing the minimum qualification and
corresponding relaxation as noticed in para-19 above shows that
though relaxation of percentage of marks in qualifying exam has
been given to the applicants (belonging to OBC category 42% and
SC/ST category 40%), but no such relaxation has been provided
to the applicants belonging to EWS category.
24. In the absence of any relaxation given under the Rules of
2008, in the opinion of this Court, the purported relaxation
granted by the State vide its admission policy of 2019-20, cannot
be applied particularly when the admission policy itself is
subservient to the Rules and regulations framed by the Bar
Council of India.
25. Having perused the material and after considering the
arguments of rival counsel and in the face of the order dated
29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India, this Court is of the
firm view that the petitioners are ineligible to be admitted to LL.B.
three years Course.
26. The communication dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Bar
Council of India is very categorical; it shows that the BCI has only
agreed to confer the reservation to EWS category, however,
refused to compromise on the quality of legal profession.
27. No relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks has been
agreed to.
(8 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
28. Adverting to the judgment cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners in case of Prahlad Kumar Vs. University of Rajasthan,
on perusal of the facts noticed therein clearly shows that the
petitioner was admitted in the LL.B. course and was allowed to
appear in the examination of the 1 st year by the University (1982)
and thereafter when they were restrained from appearing in the
subsequent examination (1983), this Court had taken a view that
the University and the College having allowed the petitioner
therein to pass 1st year cannot be permitted to raise the question
of eligibility. Whereas in the present case, the University, at the
first available opportunity did not allow the petitioner to appear.
The case cited by the petitioner is thus, clearly distinguishable on
facts.
29. The judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sangeeta
Shrivastava (supra) is premised on the principle that College was
an agent of the University. Such relationship of Principal and Agent
is too far-fetched in the present facts. This Court respectfully
disagrees with the view of the Delhi High Court that "admission
was at the most irregular and thus, the Principle that there can be
no estoppel against statute will have no application." In the
opinion of this Court, the admission to the petitioners was per-se
illegal. Lack of eligibility or qualifying marks hits at the very root
and an admission without qualifying marks cannot be considered
as irregular.
30. In view of the aforesaid and following the observation made
in para No.16 of the judgment in case of Amarjeet Kaur (supra),
this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, who have
secured less than 45% marks in their qualifying examination
are/were not eligible to be admitted in LL.B. Course and merely
(9 of 9) [CW-14677/2020]
because the respondent No.3 - College has given them admission
in the College, they cannot claim any equity much less, right to
continue with the law course.
31. Resultantly, the writ petition fails. Interim order passed by
this Court in favour of the petitioners permitting them to appear in
examination for LL.B. First Year-2020 is vacated. The examination
of the petitioners pursuant to the interim order passed by this
Court shall stand cancelled.
32. The stay application stands rejected.
SBCWP No.14736/2020 :-
1. Present petition filed by the College raises the same issue, of
course in support of the petitioners.
2. Following the reasoning given in the order relating to writ
petition (SBCWP No.14677/2020) filed by the students, nothing
remains to be considered in this writ petition. Hence, the same
also stands dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court in
favour of Manish Kumar Sharma and Ashna Sharma permitting
them to appear in examination for LL.B. First Year-2020 is
vacated. The examination of both these students pursuant to the
interim order of this Court shall stand cancelled.
3. The stay application also stands rejected.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
s-171-172-ArunV/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
