Court No. 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26009 of 2009
Shri Ji Baba College of Law, Mathura
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
*********
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Shri Ji College of Law, Mathura (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institute’)
has filed this petition for a direction upon the respondent-Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedkar University, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘University’) to
permit 44 students of the petitioner-Institute to appear at the LL.B First Year
Examination and 21 students to appear at the B.A. LL.B. First Year
Examination for the session 2008-09. A further direction has been sought that
the University may hold special examination for these students to appear at the
papers held earlier.
The dispute in the present petition is as to whether the Institute was
justified in admitting such students in the First Year LL.B and B.A. LL.B.
Courses in the Academic Session 2008-09 who had obtained upto 40% marks
only at the qualifying Examination. In this connection, it is stated that the Bar
Council of India had sent a letter dated 21st April, 1998 to the Registrars of
Universities, the Deans of the Faculty of Law Colleges and the Principals of
the Law Colleges regarding the eligibility for admission to the LL.B Three
Years Course and LL.B Five Years Course. It was provided that if admission is
made on the basis of an Entrance Examination then a candidate will be eligible
to be considered for admission to the LL.B Course if he has obtained at least
40% marks at the qualifying Examination but if admission is not made on the
basis of an Entrance Examination, then the candidate should have obtained at
least 45% marks at the qualifying Examination.
It is the case of the petitioner-Institute that it admitted students in the
session 2008-09 on the basis of an Entrance Examination in accordance with
the minimum eligibility requirement prescribed by the Bar Council of India
and submitted the examination forms of these students to the University but the
University did not issue admit cards to these students and on being asked, the
University informed the Institute that the admit cards had not been issued since
they had obtained less than 45% marks at the qualifying Examination.
2
On 18th May, 2009, the Court while entertaining the petition directed that
such students, to whom admit cards had not been issued, shall be provisionally
permitted to appear at the Examination which had begun but the result was
made subject to further orders to be passed in the writ petition.
A counter affidavit has been filed by the University stating that there is
nothing on the record which may indicate that the petitioner-Institute had
granted admission to students in the LL.B First Year Courses on the basis of an
Entrance Examination.
Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
Institute submitted that all the students had been admitted to LL.B First Year
Courses in the Institute on the basis of an Entrance Examination conducted by
the Institute and, therefore, in such circumstances, the eligibility requirement
for admission to the LL.B Course is at least 40% at the qualifying Examination
and since all the students satisfy the aforesaid eligibility requirement, the
University was not justified in not issuing admit card to the students on the
pretext that they had not obtained the required 45% at the qualifying
Examination.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
University has seriously disputed this factual position and has contended that
there is nothing on the record of the writ petition from which it can be
concluded that an Entrance Examination was held by the petitioner-Institute for
granting admission in the LL.B First Year Courses. He, therefore, submitted
that in such circumstances the University was justified in concluding that since
no Entrance Examination was held by the petitioner-Institute, the minimum
eligibility requirement will be at least 45% marks at the qualifying
Examination and since the students had not obtained the minimum 45% marks
at the qualifying Examination, they were rightly not permitted to appear at the
Examination. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, has also relied upon a decision of the
Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Appeal No. 849 of 2008
(Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr. Vs.
Azizuddin & Ors.,) connected with Special Appeal No. 850 of 2008 decided
on 4th February, 2009 in support of his contention that the directions issued by
the Bar Council of India have to be followed and that mere admission of the
students by the College cannot be made a ground to permit them to appear at
the examination even if such admissions are illegal.
3
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties.
The main dispute in the present petition is as to whether the petitioner-
Institute had conducted the Entrance Examination for granting admission to the
students in the LL.B three year course. According to the petitioners, such
Entrance Examination was conducted but according to the University, no
Entrance Examination was conducted by the petitioner-Institute.
There is nothing on the record which may substantiate the claim of the
petitioner-Institute that it held the Entrance Examination. In this view of the
matter, it is not possible to hold in this petition that the students had been
validly admitted.
In Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr
(supra) the Division Bench of this Court observed:-
“………………These appeals have been filed against an
order of learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions
filed by the students private respondents and directing the
University to declare the results of these respondents of
L.LB. Ist year and to permit them to appear in L.LB. IInd
Year Examination…………..The directive issued under Rule
21 of the Bar Council of India Rules are binding in nature.
In view of the mandatory nature of the directives, we are of
the view that the University as well as the college were
bound to give due regard to these directives and any
admission made in breach of these directions were
invalid………………..Learned counsel for the respondents
lastly submitted that the students have been admitted by the
College. They have never played any fraud and rather the
University had itself allowed the respondents to appear in
the examination and the University is, therefore, bound by
the principles of equitable estoppel to take up the case that
the admission of the respondents was not
valid………………….Learned counsel for the University relied
upon several decisions to the effect that illegal admissions in
any course cannot be justified unless there is any legal
principle to support them and the High Court should not be
liberal in passing order on compassionate ground that the
students should not suffer. On facts of these petitions, there
appears to be no legal principle which can be pressed to
grant the reliefs prayed for. The decisions relied upon are
C.B.S.C and another Vs. P. Sunil Kumar and others, (1998)
5 SCC 377, Council for Indian School Certificate
Examination Vs. Isha Mittal and another, (2000) 7 SCC 521,
Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Nikhil Gulati and
another, (1998) 3 SCC 5, Guru Nanak Dev University Vs.
Parminder Kumar Bansal and others (1993) 4 SCC 410,
Dental Council of India Vs. Harpreet Kaur Bal and others
1995 Supp. (1) SCC 304.”
4
In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court, it has to
be held that students can be permitted to appear at the LL.B. Examination only
if they satisfy the requirement prescribed by the Bar Council of India and
illegal admissions made by the College do not confer any right on the students.
Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute,
however, submitted that an opportunity may now be given to the petitioner-
Institute to file the relevant documents before the University to establish that an
Entrance Examination was actually conducted by the Institute before granting
admission to the students to the LL.B three year course in the Session 2008-09.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
University states that in case such documents are filed, the University can
examine the same and pass an appropriate order.
The petitioner-Institute may, therefore, file the relevant documents
before the University to substantiate its claim that it had held an Entrance
Examination in the session 2008-09 for granting admission in the First Year of
the LL.B courses.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that in the
event the petitioner-Institute files the relevant documents before the Registrar
of the University along with a certified copy of this order within a period of ten
days from today, the University shall examine the same and pass an
appropriate order within a period of three weeks’ from the date of filing of the
documents. The appearance of the students at the examination under the
interim order of the Court will abide by the order to be passed by the
University and in case the University is satisfied that the petitioner-Institute
had held the Entrance Examination, it may also consider the prayer of the
petitioner-Institute for permitting the students to appear at the remaining papers
which had been held prior to the passing of the interim order.
Date: 01.7.2010
GS