Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12789/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12789 of
2010
=========================================================
AMITA
HASMUKHBHAI BRAHMBHATT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
BAR
COUNCIL OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PM LAKHANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,MRS RP LAKHANI for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR. K. K.
VAISHYA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR PRAKASH K JANI for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 3,
MR HARDIK RAVAL for MR
ASIM J PANDYA for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 23/12/2010
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Petitioner
has challenged a decision of respondent No.1, Bar Council of Gujarat,
refusing to enroll her as an advocate.
2.0 The
petition arise in the following factual background:
2.1 The
petitioner, after completing her graduation in Commerce, applied to
respondent No.3, Law College, for her admission. She filled up the
form for admission, stating that she had received 331 marks out of a
total of 700 marks, in her final B.Com. Examination.
2.2 The
first instruction on the Admission Form, itself, indicates that:
“1.
For admission in the First LL.B., the applicant must have secured
minimum 45% marks in the graduation examination.”
2.3 It
is the case of the petitioner that she had obtained 331/700, which
comes to 47.28 per cent and had secured such admission. She completed
her law graduation and also obtained a degree. She, thereafter,
applied for enrollment, as an Advocate. The Bar Council, however,
found that she did not have 45 per cent marks, as required in the
graduation and opposed such request. Hence, the petition.
3.0 In
response to the notice issued, Bar Council as well as respondent
No.3, Law College, have filed replies. In particular, respondent No.3
has stated, in the reply dated 07.12.2010, that the petitioner had
played mischief, while filling up the Admission Form, and
mis-declared that she had obtained 45 per cent marks.
3.1 It
is not in dispute that the petitioner passed Final B.Com. examination
in 2nd attempt, since, in the main examination she failed
in ‘Statistics’ subject. Counting her marks in 2nd
attempt and the marks obtained in 1st attempt, the grand
total of the marks obtained by her did not come to 331 out of 700,
but, the total would be 331 out of 800 marks. She was, thus, not
qualified. She secured admission by misrepresentation. Admission
Form itself clearly stated that no candidate, having less than 45 per
cent of marks in the graduation, is eligible to be admitted in law
course. Her completing education in law, therefore, would not change
the situation. She would not be entitled to be enrolled as an
Advocate.
4.0 In
the result, this petition fails and is DISMISSED.
Notice is discharged.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
Umesh/
Top