Telangana High Court

Kevin Sukirthy vs The Telangana State Bar Council on 14 October, 2024

Author: B. Vijaysen Reddy

Bench: B. Vijaysen Reddy

      HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

                  WRIT PETITION No.13037 OF 2024

ORDER :

(ORAL)

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare

action of the respondent - the Telangana State Bar Council, Hyderabad,

in not enrolling him in to the State rolls as an Advocate though he is

fully qualified and eligible to be enrolled as an Advocate, as illegal,

arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, unfair, contrary to the principles of

natural justice and in violation of the fundamental rights under

Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India; and sought a

consequential direction to the respondent to immediately initiate

enrolment process of the petitioner and to enrol him into the State rolls

as an Advocate.

2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under:

2.1. The petitioner submitted his enrolment application to the

respondent on 11.01.2021 by paying requisite fees and necessary

documents. He passed S.S.C. in March 1999 through regular School

study. Later, he joined intermediate M.P.C. (Maths, Physics and

Chemistry) in June 1999, but could not continue his studies due to

financial constraints. In January/February 2003, he applied for regular

BVRJ

intermediate examinations (Board of Intermediate Education) under

'Tatkal Scheme' for changing his subjects to C.E.C. (Civics,

Economics and Commerce) to allow him to write intermediate

examinations as a private candidate without college study for March

2003 examinations and he was accorded permission accordingly;

except Economics (first year subject), he passed remaining subjects in

the intermediate. In June, 2003, he applied for Degree (B.Com.) under

Directorate of Distance Education course offered by Madurai Kamaraj

University at Madurai, Tamilnadu, and got admission with Registration

No.A4A2623204, Study Center No.839 at Hyderabad (Andhra

Pradesh), Telangana. He appeared for both intermediate and

graduation examinations simultaneously in 2004; and in March 2005,

while he was in second year of graduation, he passed intermediate; and

in November 2006, he passed graduation (B.Com.) from Madurai

Kamaraj University, Madurai, Tamilnadu.

2.2. It is stated that the petitioner applied for TS LAWCET -

2017 conducted by Kakatiya University, Warangal, appeared for

entrance examination on 27.05.2017 with Hall Ticket No.322110611

and secured Rank - 3949. He belongs to Christian Minority, Backward

Class - 'C' Category and secured the seat in three years LL.B. Course

BVRJ

in Marwadi Siksha Samithi Law College, Chaderghat, Hyderabad,

affiliated to Osmania University. He completed LL.B. in September

2020. He applied for TS PGLCET - 2020 for admission into

LL.M. Course, appeared for entrance examination and secured

Rank - 98; he got admission in 'Criminology and Criminal Justice

System' Course in the University College of Law, Osmania University

Campus, Hyderabad. Before joining LL.M., he submitted application

dated 11.01.2021 to the respondent under Section 24 of the Advocates

Act 1961 for his enrolment as an Advocate by paying requisite fee and

submitting necessary documents along with the sworn affidavit.

2.3. It is submitted that the respondent kept delaying the

enrolment application of the petitioner. The petitioner made several

visits to the respondent and followed up with the enrolment process,

but every time, he was informed that due to COVID -19 restrictions,

enrolment is not being done and he would be informed in due course.

The petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary of the

respondent on 27.01.2023 requesting to consider his application for

enrolment as an Advocate. By the letter dated 08.02.2023, he was

informed that as per Legal Education Rules 2008, particularly

Rule 5(a) and (b) of the Rules, as he completed his intermediate in

BVRJ

2005 and graduation in 2006, his application for enrolment as an

Advocate cannot be considered.

3.1. The respondent filed counter stating that the writ petition is

liable to be dismissed in limine. Whether a person who obtains

graduation degree by pursuing studies through Open University /

Distance Education mode is entitled for enrolment as an Advocate or

not has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in

M. Naveen Kumar v. State of Telangana 1. In Katroth Pradeep

Rathod v. Bar Council of India 2, another Division Bench of this

Court considered similar issue and held that a person who pursues his

graduation through Open University / Distance Education mode is not

entitled to seek enrolment as an Advocate. The petitioner admittedly

completed graduation (B.Com.) through the Directorate of Distance

Education, Maudrai Kamraj University, Madurai, Tamilnadu.

4. Heard the petitioner who appeared as party-in-person, and

Mr. G.M. Mohiuddin, learned standing counsel for the respondent, and

perused the material on record.

W.A. No.597 of 2020 and batch dated 28.12.2021

W.P. No.45880 of 2022 and batch dated 20.10.2023

BVRJ

5. The petitioner submitted that there is no restriction for

enrolling a candidate who has acquired graduation degree through

Distance Education mode and later pursued law course. The petitioner

referred to proviso to Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules and

contended that the Rule makes it clear that a person prosecuting studies

in Distance Education before joining 5 / 3 years LL.B. course, as the

case may be, is entitled to be enrolled as an Advocate.

6. However, the learned standing counsel for the respondent

submitted that the issue is no more res integra and in view of the

decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Naveen Kumar's case

(Supra 1), the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned

standing counsel submitted that explanation to Rule 5 of the Legal

Education Rules has been considered by the Division Bench of this

Court and it was held that a person who has acquired graduation degree

through Distance Education mode is not eligible for admission in law

courses.

BVRJ

7. Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules is as under:

"5. Eligibility for admission:

(a) Three Year Law Degree Course: An applicant who has graduated in any discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of Parliament or by a State legislature or an equivalent national institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence, may apply for a three years' degree program in law leading to conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular program conducted by a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

(b) Integrated Degree Program: An applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondary School course ('+2') or equivalent (such as 11+1, 'A' level in Senior School Leaving certificate course) from a recognized University of India or outside or from a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or 6 Bar Council of India recognized by the Union or by a State Government or from any equivalent institution from a foreign country recognized by the government of that country for the purpose of issue of qualifying certificate on successful completion of the course, may apply for and be admitted into the program of the Centres of Legal Education to obtain the integrated degree in law with a

BVRJ

degree in any other subject as the first degree from the University whose such a degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

Provided that applicants who have obtained + 2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission in the Integrated Five Years course or three years' LL.B. course, as the case may be.

Explanation: The applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation / post graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses.

8. The decision of the Division Bench in Naveen Kumar's case

(Supra 1) was considered by the Division Bench in Katroth Pradeep

Rathod's case (Supra 2) and it was held as under:

"19. The Full Bench of High Court of Madras in G.S. Jagadeesh v. Chairman, 3 year LLB Admission, The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (AIR 2018 Mad 243), had an occasion to deal with the eligibility of candidates to seek admission into law courses on obtaining one of their previous certificates by 2 AIR 2018 Mad 243 ::11:: appearing as a private candidate. The Full Bench (speaking through the Hon'ble Justice Ms. Indira Banerjee, as Her Lordship then was) by taking note of

BVRJ

the Scheme of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and that the object that was sought to be achieved, had held that a candidate whose immediate qualifying certificate was obtained from Open University could not be admitted into the course of law. The relevant observations are as under:

"30. On a perusal of Rule 5(a), it is patently clear that it was the intention of the Bar Council of India, that for admission to the Three Year Law Course, a candidate should not only be a graduate, but a graduate upon completion of a regular course conducted by a university or an institution recognized by and/or affiliated to a university, or a deemed university or equivalent institution and in case of admission to the Integrated Degree Programme, an applicant should have obtained a Senior Secondary School Certificate (+2) or equivalent certificate such as 11+2 or 'A' level Senior School Leaving Certificate from a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or recognized by the Union or by a State Government, on successful completion of the course and/or in other words, by taking admission in and going through a regular course. It appears to be the intention of the rules that the immediately preceding qualifying certificate and/or degree should have been obtained on completion of a regular course. As observed above, completion of a course through the distance or correspondence method is to be deemed to be at par with a regular course of study which requires physical attendance of classes.

55. There is a difference between open universities and other universities and/or boards, in that some of these open universities enable candidates, who do not have

BVRJ

the basic qualifications, to obtain higher qualifications straightway. By prosecuting studies through open universities, it may be possible for a candidate to obtain a Post Graduate Degree or a Three Year LLB Degree without being a graduate or to obtain a graduate degree without having the Senior Secondary School Certificate. In our view, the Bar Council of India, in its wisdom, framed the Legal Education rules making a graduate degree upon prosecution of a regular course from a university, whose degree in Law is recognized by the Bar Council of India, a mandatory eligibility criteria.

57. The language and tenor of Rules 5(a) and 5(b) read with the first proviso and the Explanation make it amply clear that prosecution of a regular course is mandatory only for the immediately previous qualifying certificate and/or degree, for example, graduate degree for the Three Year LLB Course and Senior Secondary Certificate for the Integrated Degree Program. Had the Rules intended otherwise, the Rules would have specifically provided that candidates would not be eligible for admission to the Three Year LLB unless they had obtained the Secondary and Senior Secondary Certificates upon prosecution of studies through a regular course or through distance or correspondence mode. The Bar Council of India has, in its wisdom, chosen to frame rules whereunder a Senior Secondary Examination upon prosecution of a regular course is mandatory only for admission to the Integrated Degree Course and a graduate degree in any discipline upon successful completion of a regular course, mandatory for admission to the Three Year LLB Course.

BVRJ

20. Further, in the case of M. Naveen Kumar v. State of Telangana (Order dt.28.12.2021 in WA.No.597 of 2020), a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider as to whether the prescription of having a first degree by undergoing a regular course of study, as eligibility criteria for admission into L.L.B course to the exclusion of the candidates who cleared the first degree course through other modes of education, viz., Open University, by attending classes on weekend, to whom admission into L.L.B. Course was denied, and by considering the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Madras and also having regard to the Rules of Legal Education framed under the Act, this Court had held that the appellants/petitioners before this Court in the said Writ appeals/writ petitions do not fulfill the eligibility criteria for seeking admission into 3 year L.L.B. Course.

21. The full bench of the High Court of Madras in P.Raji's case (1 supra) had an occasion to consider the issue as raised under the present writ petitions. The Full Bench while reiterating that the eligibility criteria provided in the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules was mandatory to seek admission into a course of law, and that a candidate who pursued their first degree from an Open University was thus debarred from seeking admission into 3 year L.L.B course. It was further held that for candidates to seek enrollment as an advocate it was mandatory that they were validly admitted into the course of law."

9. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that he pursued

graduation (B.Com.) through Distance Education and later passed

LL.B. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision

BVRJ

of the Division Bench of this Court in Katroth Pradeep Rathod's

case (Supra 2). Thus, there are no merits in the writ petition.

10. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission

stage itself. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

in the writ petition stand closed.

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J October 14, 2024.