Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1317/2025 on 19 September, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:8418
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS No. 3494 of 2024
With
WPMS No. 2998 of 2024
WPMS No. 1317 of 2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Mr. Pankaj Kumar
Sharma & Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocates
for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Narayan Dutt, learned Standing
Counsel with Mr. Mohit Maulekhi, learned
Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned
counsel for the respondent - University.
4. Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel
for the respondent-Bar Council of India.
5. Since common questions of fact
and law are involved in these petitions,
therefore, these petitions are clubbed
together and decided by this common
judgment. However, for the sake of
brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS
No. 1317 of 2025 alone are being
considered and discussed.
6. Petitioners took admission in
Bishamber Sahai Law Institute, Roorkee
in three years L.L.B. Course during
Academic Session 2024-25. The College
is affiliated to Hemwati Nandan
Bahuguna Garhwal Central University (in
short "Central University"). The
University has denied permission to the
petitioners to appear in 1st & 2nd
Semester Examination on the ground
that petitioners were given admission
without participating in the University
Entrance Test (UET). Thus, feeling
aggrieved, petitioners have approached
this Court.
2025:UHC:8418
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
referred to proviso to Rule 7 of Rules of
Legal Education, 2008 for contending
that there is no requirement of Bar
Council of India (in short "BCI") that
every student should be admitted in a
Law Course only after participating or
qualifying in the University Entrance Test.
They further contend that petitioners
meet the eligibility criteria fixed by BCI.
Rule 7 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008
is extracted below:-
"7. Minimum marks in qualifying
examination for admission: 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'
LLB. course, for the purpose of applying for and
getting admitted into a Law Degree Program of
any recognized University in either of the
streams.
Provided 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 fulfil other
institutional criteria notified by the institution
concerned or by the government concerned from
time to time to apply for admission."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners
also referred to Information Brochure of
HNB Garhwal Central University for
Academic Session 2024-25 for
contending that there is no requirement
of qualifying UET for admission in
different traditional and/or professional
Courses. The opening sentence of
Brochure, which is placed in page 95 of
the writ petition, is extracted below:-
"Online applications are invited to admission
in M.A. / M.Sc. / M.Com / MCA / M.Pharma /
MBA / M.Tech / MSW / LLB / LLM / B.Lib / P.G.
Diploma etc. courses through University
2025:UHC:8418
Entrance Test (UET) for session 2024-25."
9. This Court finds some substance in
the submission made by learned counsel
for the petitioners. There is ambiguity in
the Information Brochure, as it does not
clearly indicate that anyone who has not
qualified UET will not be entitled to
admission. Information Brochure simply
invites applications for appearing in a
UET for Academic Session 2024-25.
Thus, students like the petitioners cannot
be blamed for not participating in UET in
the absence of any indication in the
Information Brochure that one who does
not participate and qualify UET will not
be eligible for admission. There is
ambiguity in proviso to Rule 7 of Rules of
Legal Education also, as there is no
clarity as regards meaning of the
expression "Institution".
10. Since petitioners have already
undergone one year of study in LLB
Course, therefore, this Court thinks that
ends of justice would be met if
petitioners are permitted to make
representation to the University for
redressal of their grievances.
11. Accordingly, the writ petitions are
disposed of by permitting petitioners to
make representation(s) to the Vice-
Chancellor of the University. If
petitioners make representation within
one week from today, Vice-Chancellor
shall look into the matter and take
decision, as per law, within three weeks
thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
19.09.2025
Aswal
NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
SINGH ASWAL
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A585
31726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
Date: 2025.09.23 00:00:30 -07'00'
