{"id":82122,"date":"2006-11-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006"},"modified":"2018-10-05T13:18:43","modified_gmt":"2018-10-05T07:48:43","slug":"bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of … on 28 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of … on 28 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5301-5302 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nBAR COUNCIL OF INDIA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBOARD OF MANG. DAYANAND COLL. OF LAW AND ORS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tThe Bar Council of India challenges the
\njudgments of the High Court of Allahabad in two Writ
\nPetitions holding that the appointment of respondent No.
\n5 in these appeals as the Principal of the Dayanand
\nCollege of Law was valid and within the competence of the
\nState of Uttar Pradesh and the Chhatrapati Shri Sahu Ji
\nMaharaj Kanpur University, Kanpur.  Respondent No. 5
\nwas appointed Principal of the said Law College on
\n11.12.1995.  On an inspection, the Bar Council of India
\nfound that respondent No. 5 did not possess a
\nqualification in law and hence withdrew its recognition to
\nthe College.  At that stage, the Management of the College
\nfiled Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 48183 of 2000
\nquestioning the validity of the appointment of respondent
\nNo. 5 as the Principal of the College.  Meanwhile,
\nrespondent No. 5 was transferred as the Principal of
\nNagrik Degree College and he challenged the said order of
\ntransfer on the ground that he was competent to hold the
\npost of Principal of the Law College and the reason for his
\ntransfer was unsustainable and that a Principal could not
\nbe transferred to another College as sought to be done.
\nThe bone of contention in the Writ Petitions was whether a
\nperson who did not possess a degree or a postgraduate
\ndegree in law and was not qualified to practise law, could
\nbe appointed as the Principal of a Law College and
\nwhether it was not essential to have a degree in law before
\none could be appointed as Principal of a Law College.  The
\nBar Council of India was not a party to the Writ Petitions.
\nThe High Court took the view that going by the Uttar
\nPradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred
\nto as, “the University Act”), such an appointment could be
\nmade notwithstanding anything contained in the
\nAdvocates Act, 1961 or in the Rules framed by the Bar
\nCouncil of India.  The High Court proceeded on the basis
\nthat there was a conflict between the two enactments,
\nnamely, the University Act and the Advocates Act and in
\nterms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the
\nUniversity Act, the later State Act with the assent of the
\nPresident, would prevail over the Advocates Act and since
\nappointment to the post of a Principal of a College
\naffiliated to a University was governed by the University
\nAct,  the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal of
\nthe Law College was liable to be upheld.   It was also held
\nthat the Bar Council of India did not have any control
\nregarding legal education.  The order transferring
\nrespondent No. 5 away from the post of Principal of the
\nLaw College was consequently set aside.  No notice was
\nalso issued to the Bar Council of India, the apex
\nprofessional body of Advocates, before taking such a
\ndecision.  However, taking note of the consequences of the
\ndecision rendered by the High Court, the Bar Council of
\nIndia has filed these appeals challenging the decision of
\nthe High Court with the leave of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe appointments to Higher Educational
\nInstitutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh including Degree
\nColleges is done by the Higher Education Services
\nCommission constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Higher
\nEducation Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as, “the Act”) and in terms of Uttar Pradesh
\nHigher Education Services Commission (Procedure for
\nselection of teachers) Regulations, 1983.  Section 12 of the
\nAct insists that every appointment of a teacher shall be in
\nterms of the Act and a teacher is defined to include a
\nPrincipal.  Section 12(1) provides that any appointment
\nmade in contravention of the Act would be void.  On the
\nbasis of the relevant Regulations framed under Section 31
\nof the said Act, advertisements are to be issued inviting
\napplications for appointment of Principals to various
\ndegree colleges that had made requisitions in that behalf
\nor had reported vacancy and on the basis of the procedure
\nfor selection, a list is to be prepared of the candidates
\neligible for appointment as Principals.  The appointments
\nto various Colleges are made from the said panel
\ndepending on circumstances including the preference of
\nthe candidates.  Statute 11.14 provides the qualification to
\nbe possessed for the post of Principal in the colleges
\naffiliated to the Kanpur University.  Prior to 13.1.1995,
\nStatute 11.14 (i)(b) provided that the Principal must
\npossess “a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught
\nin the college, with 7 years’ experience of teaching degree
\nclass”.   With effect from 13.1.1995, the said Statute was
\namended and clause (b) thereafter read, “a doctorate
\ndegree, with 7 years’ experience of teaching degree class”.
\nIn other words, the requirement that the appointee must
\nhave a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in
\nthe College was done away with.  Until 13.1.1995, a
\nperson could be appointed Principal of a Law College only
\nif he possessed a doctorate degree in law or in one of the
\nbranches of law taught in that College.  But after
\n13.1.1995, on an ordinary literal interpretation of the
\namended clause, a person possessing a doctorate degree
\nin a subject wholly unrelated to law could also be
\nappointed the Principal of a Law College.  Respondent No.
\n5 herein, who was one among the candidates selected and
\nincluded in the panel and who was appointed as Principal
\nof the Dayanand Law College had a doctorate in
\nPhilosophy and had no degree or qualification in law.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe management initially accepted the
\nappointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal.  It is said
\nthat he was teaching Ethics and Ancient Law in the
\nCollege.  As noticed earlier, on an inspection made by the
\nBar Council of India, it came out that the Principal did not
\nhave any qualification in law.  The Bar Council of India,
\ntherefore, withdrew the recognition granted to the College.
\nThis placed the students coming out of the College in
\njeopardy since the Bar Council of India could deny them
\nenrolment and entry into the profession on the ground
\nthat the Institution in which they studied did not have
\nrecognition.  It was then, that the management, acting
\nthrough its Secretary, filed the Writ Petition praying for
\nthe issue of a writ of quo warranto, calling upon
\nrespondent No. 5 to show on what authority he was
\nholding office.  In that situation, respondent No. 5 was
\ntransferred as Principal of another College.  It is the case
\nof respondent No. 5 that he could not join that post since
\nan interim order was passed by the High Court
\nrestraining him from taking charge as Principal of that
\nCollege and this compelled him to file a writ petition
\nquestioning his very transfer.  It is in that context that the
\nHigh Court held that the appointment of respondent No. 5
\nwas consistent with the University Act and since that Act
\nprevailed over the Advocates Act and the relevant rules of
\nthe Bar Council of India, the status of respondent No. 5
\ncould not be questioned.  Based on that decision, the High
\nCourt also set aside the order transferring respondent No.\n<\/p>\n
5.  No doubt, it also took the view that such a transfer of
\nPrincipal was not contemplated by the University Act or
\nthe Regulations thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThere is no doubt that the University Act, 1973
\nhad the assent of the President of India and it was an
\nenactment later in point of time to the Advocates Act,
\n1961.  According to the High Court, since the appointment
\nof the Principal of the Law College was made on the basis
\nof the relevant provisions of the University Act, and the
\nRegulations framed thereunder and based on the
\nqualification prescribed by the Statute 11.14 as it stood on
\nthe date of appointment, the provisions of the Advocates
\nAct or the rules of the Bar Council of India could not be
\ninvoked to nullify his appointment or to question his
\nauthority as Principal.  Thus, the High Court postulated a
\nconflict between a State Law that had the assent of the
\nPresident and a prior Central enactment and based on
\nArticle 254(2) of the Constitution granted relief to
\nrespondent No. 5.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThe High Court also observed that the Bar
\nCouncil of India had no role in legal education as such
\nand that its role was confined to controlling the profession
\nof Advocates and the commencement of the profession,
\nthat is, enrolment as an Advocate and hence the Bar
\nCouncil of India could not make any prescription
\nregarding legal education or about those who are to teach
\nlaw, or who are to be the Principal of a College of Law.  It
\nalso proceeded on the basis that the Advocates Act is a
\nlegislation under Entry 25 or 26 of List III of the Seventh
\nSchedule to the Constitution of India and since the State
\nlaw is under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to
\nthe Constitution, the State law would prevail in the
\ncontext of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution.  The Bar
\nCouncil of India feels aggrieved by these findings of the
\nHigh Court and is before this Court with these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tLearned counsel for the Bar Council of India
\nsubmitted that the High Court was first of all in error in
\nholding that the legislative power for enacting the
\nAdvocates Act is traceable to Entry 26 of List III of the
\nSeventh Schedule to the Constitution.  Learned counsel
\nrelied on the decision of the Constitution Bench in O.N.
\nMohindroo vs. The Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.<\/a> [(1968)
\n2 S.C.R. 709] to contend that the said legislation falls
\nunder Entries 77 and 78 of List I of the Seventh Schedule
\nto the Constitution.  Learned counsel also sought to derive
\nsupport from the decision in The Bar Council of Uttar
\nPradesh Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr. [(1973) 2 S.C.R.
\n1073] in that regard.  With reference to the decision in
\nM\/s Ujagar Prints & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
\n[(1989) 3 S.C.C. 488], learned counsel reemphasized that
\npith and substance rule had to be applied and even if the
\nlaw is traceable to more than one entry, it would still
\ncontinue to be a legislation under Entries 77 and 78 in
\nList I.  He further submitted that the High Court was in
\nerror in proceeding on the basis that both the legislations
\nfell under List III of the Seventh Schedule and
\nconsequently the University Act would prevail.  This was
\nsought to be met by learned counsel for respondent No. 5
\nand for the State by contending that the Advocates Act
\ncould only be traced to Entry 26 of List III of the Seventh
\nSchedule and the High Court was right in finding that the
\nUniversity Act would prevail.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tThe Bar Council of India is constituted under
\nSection 4 of the Advocates Act.  It consists of the Attorney
\nGeneral of India, the Solicitor General of India, both in
\ntheir ex officio capacities and one member elected by each
\nState Bar Council from amongst its members.  It is a body
\ncorporate. The functions assigned to it are enumerated in
\nSection 7 of the Act.  The functions relevant for our
\npurpose are contained in Section 7(1) (h) and Section
\n7(1)(i).  They read:\n<\/p>\n
“7(1)(h)\tto promote legal education and to
\nlay down standards of such
\neducation in consultation with the
\nUniversities in India imparting
\nsuch education and the State Bar
\nCouncils;”\n<\/p>\n
7(1)(i)\tto recognize Universities whose
\ndegree in law shall be a
\nqualification for enrolment as an
\nadvocate and for that purpose to
\nvisit and inspect Universities or
\ncause the State Bar Councils to
\nvisit and inspect Universities in
\naccordance with such directions as
\nit may give in this behalf;”\n<\/p>\n
The duty of admission and enrolment of Advocates is
\nentrusted to the State Bar Council except in the case of
\nSupreme Court advocates which is with the Bar Council of
\nIndia.  After 12.3.1967, a person may be admitted as an
\nadvocate on a State roll only if he has obtained a degree in
\nlaw from a University recognized by the Bar Council of
\nIndia.  Section 24, to the extent it is relevant here, reads:
\n“24.\tPersons who may be admitted as
\nadvocates on a State roll.  (1)  Subject to
\nthe provisions of this Act, and the rules
\nmade thereunder, a person shall be
\nqualified to be admitted as an advocate on a
\nState roll, if he fulfills the following
\nconditions, namely:-\n<\/p>\n
(a) \t.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\n<\/p>\n
(c)\the has obtained a degree in law–\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tbefore the 12th day of March,
\n1967 from any University in the
\nterritory of India; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) \tbefore the 15th  of August, 1947,
\nfrom any University in any area
\nwhich was comprised before that
\ndate within India as defined by
\nthe Government of India  Act,
\n1935; or\n<\/p>\n
(iii) \tafter the  12th  day of March,
\n1967, save as provided in sub-\n<\/p>\n
clause (iiia) after undergoing a
\nthree years course of study in law
\nfrom any University in India
\nwhich is recognized for the
\npurposes of this Act by the Bar
\nCouncil of India; or
\n(iiia) after undergoing a course of
\nstudy in law, the duration of
\nwhich is not less than two
\nacademic years commencing from
\nthe academic year 1967-68 or any
\nearlier academic year from any
\nUniversity in India which is
\nrecognized for the purposes of
\nthis Act by the Bar Council of
\nIndia; or\n<\/p>\n
(iv) \tin any other case, from any
\nUniversity outside the territory of
\nIndia, if the degree is recognized
\nfor the purposes of this Act by the
\nBar Council of India] or;\n<\/p>\n
he is a barrister and is called to
\nthe Bar on or before the 31st day
\nof December, 1976 or has passed
\nthe articled clerks” examination
\nor any other examination
\nspecified by the High Court at
\nBombay or Calcutta for enrolment
\nas an attorney of that High Court;\n<\/p>\n
or has obtained such other
\nforeign qualification in law as is
\nrecognized by the Bar Council of
\nIndia for the purpose of
\nadmission as an advocate under
\nthis Act;”\n<\/p>\n
Section 49 confers the power to make rules for discharging
\nthe functions of the Bar Council of India.  Relevant topics
\nfor our purposes are set down hereunder:
\n“49(1)(af)\tthe minimum qualifications
\nrequired for admission to a course
\nof degree in law in any recognised
\nUniversity;”\n<\/p>\n
 and
\n“49(1)(d). \tthe standards of legal education
\nto be observed by Universities in
\nIndia and the inspection of
\nUniversities for that purpose;”\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tThe Bar Council of India Rules are framed by the
\nBar Council of India in exercise of its rule making power.
\nPart IV thereof deals with legal education, the duration of
\nit, the syllabi etc.  Section A deals with five-year law
\ncourse and Section B deals with three-year law course.
\nUnder Section A Rule 2, a degree in law obtained from a
\nUniversity shall not be recognized for the purpose of
\nenrolment as an advocate under the Advocates Act unless
\nthe conditions laid down therein are fulfilled.  Only then a
\nstudent coming out of that University could get enrolled as
\nan advocate.  Provision has also been made regarding
\nteachers of law.  Rule 12 reads:\n<\/p>\n
“12.\tFull-time teachers of law
\nincluding the Principal of the College
\nshall ordinarily be holders of a
\nMaster’s degree in law and where the
\nholders of Master’s degree in law are
\nnot available, persons with teaching
\nexperience for a minimum period of 10
\nyears in law may be considered.  Part-\n<\/p>\n
time teachers other then one with
\nLL.M. degree shall have a minimum
\npractice of five years at the Bar.”\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tRule 17(1) stipulates that no college after the
\ncoming into force of the Rules shall impart instruction in a
\ncourse of study in law for enrolment as an advocate unless
\nits affiliation has been approved by the Bar Council of
\nIndia.  Thus, though the Bar Council of India may not
\nhave been entrusted with direct control of legal education
\nin the sense in which the same is entrusted to a
\nUniversity, still, the Bar Council of India retains adequate
\npower to control the course of studies in law, the power of
\ninspection, the power of recognition of degrees and the
\npower to deny enrolment to law degree holders, unless the
\nUniversity from which they pass out is recognized by the
\nBar Council of India.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThe first task of a court confronted with a set of
\nparallel provisions relating to the appointment of a
\nprincipal of a law college like the one in the amended
\nprovision of the Statute under the University Act and the
\nRules made by the Bar Council of India which could
\nultimately refuse to admit a graduate of law coming out of
\nthe University to enrolment as an advocate, which alone
\nwould entitle him to practice, is to see whether the
\nprovisions could not be reconciled or harmoniously
\nconstrued so as to achieve the object of both the
\nenactments.   Prior to 13.1.1995, there was no conflict
\nbetween Statute 11.14 and Rule 12 of the Rules of the Bar
\nCouncil.  In 1995, in the University Statutes, the
\nrequirement of the Principal having to be the holder of a
\ndoctorate in one of the subjects taught in the College, was
\ndone away with.  Obviously, such a provision could not be
\nunderstood as controlling fully professional education like
\nthat in Medicine, Engineering or Law.  No doubt, the
\nUniversity has not made a distinction in that regard in
\nthis context.   But obviously, it does not appeal to
\ncommon sense to say that an engineer could be appointed
\nthe Principal of a Medical College or a Great Physician
\ncould be appointed as the Principal of an Engineering
\nCollege.  Same is the position regarding the appointment
\nof a doctorate in Science or a doctorate in Philosophy as
\nthe Principal of a law college.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe aim of most of the students who enter the
\nlaw college, is to get enrolled as Advocates and practice
\nlaw in the country.  To do that, they have necessarily to
\nhave a degree from a University that is recognized by the
\nBar Council of India.  Therefore, the court, in a situation
\nlike the present one, has to ask itself whether it could not
\nharmoniously construe the relevant provisions and reach
\na conclusion consistent with the main aim of seeking or
\nimparting legal education.  So approached, nothing stands
\nin the way of the court coming to the conclusion that
\nthough under the relevant Statute of the University as
\namended, theoretically, it may be possible to appoint a
\nDoctor of Philosophy or a Doctor of Science as the
\nPrincipal of a Law College, taking into account the
\nrequirements of the Advocates Act, the Rules of the Bar
\nCouncil of India and the main purpose of legal education,
\nthe Court would be justified in holding that as regards the
\npost of the Principal of a Law College, it would be
\nnecessary for the proposed incumbent also to satisfy the
\nrequirements of the Rules of the Bar Council of India.
\nSuch a harmonious understanding of the position
\nrecognizing the realities of the situation, would justify the
\nconclusion that a Doctorate holder in any of the law
\nsubjects could alone be appointed as the Principal of a
\nLaw College.  The High Court, in our view, made an error
\nin not trying to reconcile the relevant provisions and in not
\nmaking an attempt to harmoniously construe the relevant
\nprovisions so as to give efficacy to all of them.  A
\nharmonious understanding could lead to the position that
\nthe Principal of a Law College has to be appointed after a
\nprocess of selection by the body constituted in that behalf,
\nunder the University Act, but while nominating from the
\nlist prepared, and while appointing him, it must be borne
\nin mind that he should fulfill the requirements of the
\nRules of the Bar Council of India framed under the
\nAdvocates Act and it be ensured that he holds a Doctorate
\nin any one of the branches of law taught in the law college.
\nWe do not see anything in the University Act or the
\nStatutes framed thereunder, which stands in the way of
\nthe adopting of such a course.  Therefore, when a request
\nis made for selection of a Principal of a law college, the
\nUniversity and the Selection Committee has to ensure that
\napplications are invited from those who are qualified to be
\nprincipals of a law college in terms of the Rules of the Bar
\nCouncil and from the list prepared, a person possessing
\nthe requisite qualification, is nominated and appointed as
\nthe Principal of a law college.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIt is clear from the decision of the Constitution
\nBench in O.N. Mohindroo vs. The Bar Council of Delhi
\n& Ors.<\/a> (supra) that in pith and substance, the Advocates
\nAct falls under Entries 77 and 78 of List I of the Seventh
\nSchedule.  That apart, it is not necessary to postulate a
\nconflict of legislation in this case as we have indicated
\nearlier.  It is true that under the University Act, the
\nselection of a Principal of a College affiliated to the
\nconcerned University has been left to a Higher Education
\nServices Commission and respondent No. 5 was included
\nin the panel of selected candidates pursuant to a due
\nselection by that Commission.  It is also true that
\ntheoretically the State Government on the
\nrecommendation of the Director of Higher Education could
\nappoint any one from that list as Principal of any College
\nincluding a Law College.  But when concerned with the
\nappointment of a Principal of the Law College, there
\ncannot be any difficulty either in the Recommending
\nAuthority or in the State Government recognizing the fact
\nthat a person duly qualified in law is required to be the
\nPrincipal of that Law College in the interests of the
\nstudents coming out of that College in the light of the
\nAdvocates Act, 1961 and the rules framed by the Bar
\nCouncil of India governing enrolment of Advocates and
\ntheir practice.  It must be the endeavour of the State and
\nthe Recommending Authority to ensure that the students
\ncoming out of the College are not put to any difficulty and
\nto ensure that their career as professionals is in no way
\njeopardized by the action of the Government in appointing
\na Principal to a Law College.  Therefore, even while
\nadhering to its process of selection of a Principal, it
\nbehoves the State to ensure that the appointment it makes
\nis also consistent with the Advocates Act and the rules
\nframed by the Bar Council of India.  It may not be correct
\nto say that the Bar Council of India is totally unconcerned
\nwith the legal education, though primarily legal education
\nmay also be within the province of Universities.  But, as
\nthe apex professional body, the Bar Council of India is
\nconcerned with the standards of the legal profession and
\nthe equipment of those who seek entry into that
\nprofession. The Bar Council of India is also thus
\nconcerned with the legal education in the country.
\nTherefore, instead of taking a pedantic view of the
\nsituation, the State Government and the Recommending
\nAuthority are expected to ensure that the requirement set
\ndown by the Bar Council of India is also complied with.
\nWe are of the view that the High Court was not correct in
\nits approach in postulating a conflict between the two laws
\nand in resolving it based on Article 254(2) of the
\nConstitution.  Of course, the question whether the assent
\nto the Act would also extend to the statute framed under it
\nand that too to an amendment made subsequent to the
\nassent are questions that do not call for an answer in this
\ncase in the light of the view we have adopted.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tAccording to us therefore, notwithstanding the
\nprocedure to be followed under the University Act and
\nStatute 11.14 as amended, it is necessary for the
\nRecommending Authority and the State Government when
\nconcerned with the appointment of a Principal of a Law
\nCollege, also to adhere to the requirements of the
\nAdvocates Act and the rules of the Bar Council of India.
\nThis would ensure a harmonious working of the
\nUniversities and the Bar Council of India in respect of
\nlegal education and the avoidance of any problems for the
\nstudents coming out of the Institution wanting to pursue
\nthe legal profession.  We therefore hold that the State
\nGovernment and the Recommending Authority were not
\njustified in recommending and appointing respondent No.
\n5 as the Principal of the Dayanand Law College.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tIt is somewhat difficult to appreciate why clause\n<\/p>\n
(b) of Statute 11.14 (ii) was amended by dropping the
\nrequirement that the Principal should hold a doctorate
\ndegree in one of the subjects taught in the college.  Does
\nthe State and the University want a square peg in a round
\nhole?  Is it consistent with good educational policy to
\nappoint a Scientist as the Principal of an exclusive Art or
\nCommerce College or a Doctor of Literature or History, as
\nthe Principal of an exclusive Science College?  It is,
\ntherefore, necessary for the concerned authorities to look
\ninto this aspect and consider whether clause (b), as it
\nstood prior to 13.1.1995, should be not restored in the
\ninterests of education in general.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tIt was stated during the course of arguments
\nthat the Bar Council of India itself has watered down the
\nrequirement that the Principal of a Law College must have
\na Postgraduate degree in law and has now provided that it
\nis enough if he has a mere degree in law.  This again is a
\nmatter for the Bar Council of India to ponder over and to
\nconsider whether there is any justification in watering
\ndown the qualification for a Principal as either a doctorate
\nin law or a postgraduate degree in law.  We are sure that
\nwhat was envisaged as the body of Peers would seriously
\nconsider this question.  Similarly, the argument by
\nlearned counsel for the respondents that the Bar Council
\nof India takes no interest in legal education or in keeping
\nup the standards of the profession, is something that the
\nBar Council of India should take note of so that it could
\ntake steps to rectify the situation, if there is any substance
\nin that submission.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tWe find that consistent with the Advocates Act
\nand the rules of the Bar Council of India, respondent No. 5
\ncould not have been appointed as the Principal of a Law
\nCollege, however, eminent he might be as a philosopher,
\nfriend and guide to the students and his competence to
\nteach Ethics could be recognized.  It is submitted on
\nbehalf of the respondent No. 5 that he was not responsible
\nfor his appointment as the Principal of the Law College
\nand he has suffered because of this controversy which is
\nnot of his making and since he was relieved from the post
\nof the Principal of the Law College subsequent to the
\ninterim order passed by this Court in these appeals.  It is
\nsubmitted that though he was transferred as the Principal
\nof another Institution, he could not take charge because of
\nsome interim orders passed by the High Court in a Writ
\nPetition filed by some interested persons.  Now, that we
\nhave clarified the position, we have, no doubt, that the
\nauthorities that be and the High Court will deal with the
\ngrievances of respondent No. 5 regarding his status and
\nposting in an expeditious manner, if moved in that behalf
\nand take an appropriate decision consistent with what we
\nhave stated in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tThe appeals are thus allowed, the judgments of
\nthe High Court are set aside.  The Writ Petition filed by the
\nmanagement is allowed and the Writ Petition filed by
\nrespondent No. 5 is dismissed.  The parties are directed to
\nsuffer their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of … on 28 November, 2006 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5301-5302 of 2001 PETITIONER: BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RESPONDENT: BOARD OF MANG. DAYANAND COLL. OF LAW AND ORS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28\/11\/2006 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of ... on 28 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of ... on 28 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-05T07:48:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of … on 28 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T07:48:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4589,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006\",\"name\":\"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of ... on 28 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T07:48:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of … on 28 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of ... on 28 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of ... on 28 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-05T07:48:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of … on 28 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T07:48:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006"},"wordCount":4589,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006","name":"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of ... on 28 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T07:48:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bar-council-of-india-vs-board-of-mang-dayanand-coll-of-on-28-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bar Council Of India vs Board Of Mang. Dayanand Coll. Of … on 28 November, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}