WP/22588/2009 of U.Sunil Kumar, Vs The Bar Council of India, on 31 December 2009

1. The Bar Council of India rep. By its Secretary, New Delhi and others.

..Respondents

The Court made the following Common Order:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEA.GOPAL REDDYand THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICESAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

W.P.Nos.16585, 18135, 19072, 19076,20521, 21977, 22588, 22587,19945,17100, 17966 & 23658of 2009

Common Order:(Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy)

1. In all these batch of writ petitions, petitioners are seekingquashing of the Explanation added to Rule 5 of Rules of LegalEducation, 2008 (for short “the Rules, 2008”) and for a consequentialdirection directing the respondents to admit them into three years LawCourse during the academic year 2009-2010.

2. The petitioner in W.P.No.16585 of 2009, who passed SSC in2003 without prosecuting two years Intermediate Course obtained B.A.Degree through Dr.B.R.Ambedkar University in 2009 appeared forLAWCET and secured 1006 rank, was denied admission on theground that he has not prosecuted 10+2 and directly obtained degreethrough Open University and not eligible for admission as per theExplanation added to Rule 5.

3. The petitioner in W.P.No.18135 of 2009 on passing SSCexamination in the year 1995 without prosecuting two yearsIntermediate Course obtained B.A. Degree from Annamalai University during the year 2008 and qualified in LAWCET. When sheapproached 5[th] respondent—College for admission into three yearsLaw Course she was informed that she is not eligible to get admissionas per Rules.

4. The petitioner in W.P.No.19072 of 2009, who completed SSCExamination in the year 1996 could not pursue Intermediate Coursebut obtained B.A. degree by way of Distance Education from AndhraUniversity, appeared for LAWCET and qualified. When heapproached the 5[th] respondent—College for admission into threeyears LLB Course, he was informed that as per Rules of LegalEducation he was not eligible to get admission into three years LawCourse.

5. The petitioner in W.P.No.19676 of 2009 on obtaining SSCqualification in the year 1996 joined two years Intermediate Course butdiscontinued the same. He completed Graduation in Commerce byDistance Media from Kakatiya University during the year 2004-2009,appeared and secured 4072 rank in the LAWCET but deniedadmission into three years LL.B. Course.

6. The petitioner in W.P.No.20521 of 2009 after obtainingSecondary School Certificate in 2002 could not prosecute IntermediateCourse but obtained B.A. Degree from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar OpenUniversity in 2008. He appeared and qualified in LAWCET but he wasdenied admission on the ground that he has not prosecuted 10+2.

7. The petitioner in W.P.No.21979 of 2009 after passing SSCexamination in the year 2002 without undertaking Intermediate Courseobtained B.A. Degree from Andhra University by Distance Education,appeared for Entrance Test and secured rank in LAWCET but he was

8. Three petitioners in W.P.No.22588 of 2009 withoutprosecuting two years Intermediate Course directly obtained B.A.Degrees from Kakatiya University and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar University.Though they were qualified in LAWCET, they were denied admissioninto three years Law Course.

9. The petitioner in W.P.No.22587 of 2009 after completion ofSSC examination in the year 1994 joined Intermediate Course butdiscontinued the same and obtained B.A. degree directly fromDr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University while working as Record Assistantin the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Though he qualified in theLAWCET, he was denied admission into three years Law Course onthe ground that he has not prosecuted 10+2.

10. The petitioner in W.P.No.19945 of 2009 completed SSCExamination in the year 1991, discontinued Intermediate Course andGraduation Course, obtained Post Graduation in M.A. Sociologythrough Madhurai Kamaraj University, appeared for LAWCET andqualified in the same, but denied admission into three years LawCourse.

11. The petitioner in W.P.No.19945 of 2009 completed SSCExamination in the year 1996, obtained B.Com Degree in 2002 fromSchool of Distance Education and also completed MBA from AndhraUniversity by Distance Education, appeared for LAWCET and got3023 rank, but denied admission on the ground of not having 10+2+3qualification.

12. The petitioner in W.P.No.17966 of 2009 after obtaining Secondary School Certificate in the year 2000, completed SahityaRatna (said to be equivalent to B.A. Degree Course) and M.A. (Hindi)by Distance Education in the year 2007 appeared for LAWCET, 2009and qualified in the same, but denied admission into three years LL.B.Course.

13. The Petitioner in W.P.No.23658 of 2009 on obtaining SSCqualification in the year 1989 without prosecuting two yearsIntermediate Course directly obtained B.A. Degree from KakatiyaUniversity, appeared for LAWCET and got 8880 rank, but did not getadmission into three years Law Course.

14. Respondent No.1—Bar Council of India (BCI) filed a counteraffidavit, opposing the writ petitions, contending that curriculum forLL.B. Course, which was in force prior to

14-09-2009, was prepared and implemented more than a decade ago.Due to the changed circumstances, namely, economic changes,globalisation, increase of international trade and commerce by metesand bounds, necessitated drastic changes in the education systemalso and regulation of all major professional courses to meet thechallenges to bring it on par with such education elsewhere in theWorld. The BCI took up the task of revising the curriculum forprofessional courses in consultation with the Universities impartinglegal education and the State Bar Councils. The BCI framed Rulesunder the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for laying down thestandards in legal education to be complied with by the variousUniversities imparting legal education in the country with the Part-IV ofBCI Rules and the same has been approved and adopted by BCI in itsmeeting held on 14-09-2008 vide Resolution No.110/2008. The saidRules were framed to standardize the legal education and recognition of degrees in Law for the purpose of enrolment as advocates andinspection of University for recognizing its degrees in Law. Rule 5 ofRules, 2008 prescribes eligibility criteria for admission into Three YearLaw Degree Course and Integrated Five Years Course; Rule 7 dealswith minimum marks in qualifying examination for admission and Rule8 lays down standard of courses. In the light of Explanation to Rule 5,petitioners are not eligible for admission into three years Law Course,since they took degree without obtaining 10+2. The petitioners, whoafter having completed high school education did not do the regularIntermediate Course and obtained B.A. and other degrees, are notentitled to seek admission into three years Law Course.

The BCI vide resolution No.79 of 2009 in its meeting held on 27-06-2009 decided B.A. degree obtained by S.H.Santha KumarSharma from IGNOU cannot be treated on par with regular degreeobtained from the recognized University. In view of the Explanation toRule 5, prescribing qualification to get them admitted into three yearsLaw Course, petitioners were rightly denied admission, since they didnot have 10+2.

15. The BCI is a statutory body constituted under Section 4 of theAct to lay down the standard of legal education and recognition ofdegree in law for the admission as an advocate. The said power wasassigned to its sub-Committee known as “Legal Education Committee”constituted by the BCI under Section 19(2)(b) of the Act. The LegalEducation Committee after elaborate study finalized the remainingschedule of BCI Rules in Part-IV relating to the standard of legaleducation and recognition of degree in Law for admission as anadvocate. Though the Explanation to Rule 5 was not added, BCI in itsmeeting held on 14-09-2008 by resolution No.110/2008 accepted the recommendations of the Legal Education Committee. While confirmingthe Minutes of the Bar Council of India and on suggestions made toamend certain part of rules, Bar Council of India in its resolutionNo.137/2008 resolved to add explanation to Rule 5 in tune with therecommendations made by Legal Education Committee.

16. The grounds of challenge briefly stated are thus:1.The BCI went beyond the power envisagedunder the Act by prescribing minimumqualification i.e. pre-graduation stage. We find itdifficult to accept the contention.1.The BCI went beyond the power envisagedunder the Act by prescribing minimumqualification i.e. pre-graduation stage. We find itdifficult to accept the contention.

2. There is no material in taking a decision toprescribe minimum qualification 10+2 foradmission into three years Law Course. Hencethe same is arbitrary.prescribe minimum qualification 10+2 foradmission into three years Law Course. Hencethe same is arbitrary.

3. Prescribing minimum qualification violatesArticle 14, since it amounts to discrimination intwo homogeneous groups of graduates,namely, regular graduates and graduates whoobtained degree in Open University by DistanceEducation.Article 14, since it amounts to discrimination intwo homogeneous groups of graduates,namely, regular graduates and graduates whoobtained degree in Open University by DistanceEducation.

4. The BCI’s decision is ante-poor.

17. Smt. Manchakalapati Renuka, learned counsel for thepetitioner in W.P.No.18135 of 2009 contended that under Section7(h) of the Act the functions of BCI is to promote legal education andto lay down standards under the rule-making power under Section 49of the Act. The BCI can prescribe a degree from any recognizedUniversity as minimum qualification required for admission into acourse, but how the degree is obtained is immaterial. Therefore, rule-making power cannot go beyond prescribing the minimumqualification. She placed strong reliance on the following judgments:

1. INDIAN COUNCIL OF LEGAL AID AND ADVICE v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

[1]

2. P.BASI REDDY v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[[2]]

3. V.N.SUNANDA REDDY v. STATE OF A.P.[[3]]

18. Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner inW.P.No.20521 of 2009, contended that once the source of power forframing the Rules for BCI is from Section 7(1)(h) (i); under Section49(1)(af) the BCI being a statutory body cannot go beyond its powerto fix the minimum qualification required for admission, where itprescribed 10+2 for five years Integrated Course and 10+2+3 for threeyears Law Course. Section 7(H) of the Act prescribes the powers andfunctions i.e. to promote legal education and lay down standards ofsuch education in consultation with the Universities in India impartingsuch education and the State Bar Councils. In the counter it is notstated such consultation process was undertaken before Explanationis added to Rule 5. For the said proposition reliance is placed on thefollowing judgments.

1. ROSHAN LAL TANDON v. UNION OF INDIA[[4]]

2. MERVYN CONTINHO v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS[[5]]

He further contended that for discrimination of two homogeneousgroups of graduates: 1.who obtained B.A. degree directly from therecognized University and 2.who obtained degree in normal course,there is no material to treat them as different classes. He alsocontended that the BCI’s decision is ante-poor, since the poorer sections, who could not prosecute theregular school education, did hard work, acquired graduation andcome up in their life, cannot be denied admission. For which he placedstrong reliance on the following judgments.

1. G.RAVI KUMAR v. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NALGONDA[[6]]

2. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED FINANCIAL ANALYSSTS OF INDIA v. COUNCILOF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTS OF INDIA[[7]]

He also made a feeble submission that the Rules, 2008 came intoforce from September, 2008, which cannot be applied retrospectively.Since the petitioners obtained degrees before September, 2008, thesame cannot be made applicable to them.

19. Sri Ch.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner inW.P.No.22587 of 2009 contended that BCI can only prescribequalification for enrolment, but not for acquiring degree.

20. Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner inW.P.No.19945 of 2009 contended that while inserting Explanation toRule 5 what is the object sought to be achieved has not beenexplained and the same has no nexus to the objects sought to beachieved and the same is irrational. It is total non-application of mindwithout there being any power to make standards in legal educationbut the same will not authorize to prescribe standards in pre-gradationlevel, namely, 10+2.

21. Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner inW.P.No.23658 of 2009 contended that though the petitioner was givenadmission into Law Course in convener quota in the 5[th] respondent—College, since the same is not ratified, the said seat was allotted tosome other candidate and now the seats are vacant in the 6[th]respondent—College and it is not prepared to admit unless necessarydirections are obtained from the Court. In spite the petitioner couldsecure good rank and compete on par with the others he was deniedadmission only by virtue of Explanation added to Rule 5. Therefore,

22. Smt.S.Nanda, learned standing counsel for the 1[st]respondent—Bar Council of India, per contra, while justifying theRules framed by the BCI would contend that the functions of BCI is topromote legal education and lay down the standards in consultationwith the Universities imparting legal education and State Bar Councilsand to recognize Universities whose degree in Law shall bequalification for enrolment as an advocate to the said purpose. TheBCI will have power to inspect the Universities and can do all otherthings necessary to discharge the aforementioned functions. Section2(h) of the Act defines the word law graduate, which means a personwho has obtained a bachelor's degree in law from any Universityestablished by law in India. Under Section 24 of the Act it isprerogative of the BCI to admit an advocate on the state rolls. Underthe rule-making power the BCI can make rules prescribing minimumqualification to admit into a course of degree in Law and the class orcategory of persons entitled to enroll as an advocate. She alsocontends that laying standards in legal education also includes powerto define a standard of general education as a condition for admissioninto Law Course.

23. Sri Sudesh Anand, learned standing counsel for the StateCouncil for Higher Education submitted that Convener do not allot anycandidates. The counselling was held 10-08-2009 and last date foradmission is 31-08-2009, classes were commenced on 07-09-2009.24. Before we proceed to examine the merits of submissionsand counter submissions made by the counsel, it is relevant tosummarize the statutory provisions of the Advocates Act and Ruleimpugned.

“Section 2 (a): "advocate" means anadvocate entered in any roll under the provisionsof this Act.

Section 2(h): "law graduate" means aperson who has obtained a bachelor's degree inlaw from any University established by law inIndia.

Section 7(1)(h):to promote legaleducation and to lay down standards of sucheducation in consultation with the Universities inIndia imparting such education and the State BarCouncils;

(i) to recognize Universities whosedegree in law shall be a qualification forenrolment as an advocate and for that purpose tovisit and inspect Universities.

(ia) to conduct seminars and organizetalks on legal topics by eminent jurists andpublish journals and papers of legal interest; (ib) to organize legal aid to the poor in theprescribed manner;

(ic) to recognize on a reciprocal basisforeign qualifications in law obtained outsideIndia for the purpose of admission as anadvocate under this Act.

Section 24Persons who may be admittedas advocates on a State roll

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,and the rules made thereunder, a person shall bequalified to be admitted as an advocate on aState roll, if he fulfils the following conditions,namely:

(a) he is a citizen of India:

Provided that subject to the other provisionscontained in this Act, a national of any othercountry may be admitted as an advocate on aState roll, if citizens of India, duly qualified, arepermitted to practice law in that other country;(b) he has completed the age of twenty-one years; Section 49:General power of the BarCouncil of India to make rules—

(1) The Bar Council of India may makerules for discharging its functions under this Act,and, in particular, such rules may prescribe (af) the minimum qualifications required foradmission to a course of degree in law in anyrecognized University; (ag) the class or category of personsentitled to be enrolled as advocates; (d) the standards of legal education to beobserved by Universities in India and theinspection of Universities for that purpose.

Rule 5 of Rules, 2008:Eligibility for admission:(a)Three Year Law Degree Course:anapplicant who has graduated in anydiscipline of knowledge from a Universityestablished by an Act of Parliament or by aState Legislature or an equivalent nationalinstitution recognized as a Deemed to beUniversity or foreign University recognizedas equivalent to the status of an IndianUniversity by an authority competent todeclare equivalence, may apply for a threeyears’ degree programme in law leading toconferment of LL.B. degree on successfulcompletion of the regular programmeconducted by a University whose degree inlaw is recognized by the Bar Council of Indiafor the purpose of enrolment.

(b) Integrated Degree Programme: Anapplicant who has successfully completedSenior Secondary School Course (‘+2’) orequivalent (such as 11+1, ‘A’ level in SeniorSchool Leaving certificate course) from a recognized University of India or outside orfrom a Senior Secondary Board orequivalent, constituted or recognized by theUnion or by a State Government or from anyequivalent institution from a foreign countryrecognized by the Government of thatcountry for the propose of issue of qualifyingcertificate on successful completion of thecourse, may apply for and be admitted intothe program of the Centers of LegalEducation to obtain the integrated degree inlaw with a degree in any other subject as thefit degree from the university whose such adegree in law is recognized by the BarCouncil of India for the purpose ofenrolment.

Provided that applicants who have obtained +2Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First DegreeCertificate after prosecuting studies in distance orcorrespondence method shall also be consideredas eligible for admission in the Integrated FiveYears course or three years’ LL.B. course, as thecase may be.

Explanation:The applicants who have obtained10 +2 or graduation / post graduation through openUniversities system directly without having anybasic qualification for prosecuting such studies arenot eligible or admission in the law courses.

25. We shall scrutinize the respective contentions of the learnedcounsel and the position of law with reference to the relevant rules andthe various judicial pronouncements of this Court and the SupremeCourt in series of decisions dealing with powers vested in the BCI.

26. From the scheme of the Act, Section 7(1)(h) deals withpromotion of legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting sucheducation and the State Bar Councils and to recognize Universitieswhose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as anadvocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities; to verifylegal standards and give necessary instructions in the manner ofconducting three years or five years Law Course as the case may be. Section 24 deals with enrolment of law graduate to be admitted as anadvocate on a State roll. Under Section 49, the BCI is conferred withthe power to make rules for laying the standards of legal education inconsultation with the Universities. Clause (af) of sub-section (1) ofSection 49 authorizes BCI to make rules prescribing minimumqualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law inany recognized University. Clause (ag) of sub-Section (1) of Section49 deals with class or category of persons entitled to be enrolled asadvocates. Clause (d) of sub-Section (1) of Section 49 envisages thestandards of legal education to be observed by Universities in Indiaand the inspection of Universities for that purpose.

27. In exercise of rule-making power, the BCI framed Rules,2008 prescribing the eligibility for admission into Three Year LawDegree Course and Integrated Degree Programme.

28. The Legal Education Committee under the Chairmanship,Mr. Justice A.P.Mishra, Former Judge of Supreme Court, consisting ofHonourable Judges of the Supreme Court, namely, Justice,A.S.Anand, Justice S.C.Agarwal, Justice K.N.Saikia, JusticeA.P.Mishra and Justice V.S.Sirpurkar and also Justice A.K.Patnaik,Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh, as members besides Dr.N.L.Mitra,former Director NLSIU, Bangalore and National Law School, Jodhpurapart from members of the Bar Council of India after due deliberations/consultations for nearly two years prepared draft rulesand curriculum and sent to the Universities imparting Legal Educationand State Bar Councils as a part of consultation as provided for underthe Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of India through itsResolution No.110/2008, dt. 14-10-2009 accepted the revised ruleswith effect from 2009-2010.29. This Court in BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v.BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v.

This Court in BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v.BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v.

G.KESAVARAMAYYA[[8]]while dealing with competence of BarCouncil of India to take steps for promotion of legal education and inpursuit of that objective to lay down standards of such education heldas under:

“The clause (h) of Section 7 does not lend itselfto the narrow construction advocated by counsel. It iscompetent for the Bar Council. It is competent for theBar Council of India to take steps for the promotion oflegal education and in pursuit of that objective to laydown standards of such education. Is it consistent withreason to urge that standards of legal education can beprescribed without the prior equipment oraccomplishments of students of law? It s a mereillusion to think that without the foundational generaleducation, sound standards of legal education can beachieved.

The expression "standards of such education" issufficiently wide to enable the Bar Council to insist upona minimum level of general education as asteppingstone for taking up the study of law. It is sellknown that for a proper comprehension of subjects likejurisprudence, constitutional law etc., a fairly highstandard of academic training is indispensable. Theability to grasp and assimilate principles of law cannotbe expected of a person who has not obtained a degreein arts, science or commerce. How can be standards oflegal education be maintained or promoted unless persons admitted to the study of law have the standardof ability or the faculty of comprehension to imbibe theessential principles of law?

We are clearly of opinion that the function oflaying down standards of legal education necessarilyimplies the power to define a standard of generaleducation as a condition for admission to a course oflaw. There standard of legal education cannot bedisassociated from the antecedent equipment ofgeneral education. We cannot accede to the contentionof Mr. Ramanujachari that clause (h) of Section 7 oughtto be understood as excluding the power to fix aminimum academic standard as a pre-requisite for thecommencement of studies in law.”

…It is nevertheless a function of the BCI underclause (i) of Section 7(1) to recognize Universitieswhose degree in law shall be a qualification forenrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visitand inspect Universities. The necessary implication ofclause (i) read along with clause (n) of Section 7 is thatit is permissible for the Bar Council of India to restrictrecognition to the law degrees conferred by Universitieswhich ordain as a precondition graduation before thecommencement of a course of study in law. It is withinthe competence of the Bar Council of India to accordrecognition of degrees of law subject to the condition hatthe commencement of legal education should bepreceded by graduation.

Having defined ‘law graduate’ under Section 2(h)the legislature has chosen under Section 24 to conferthe power of recognition of degrees of law on the BarCouncil of India. The power exercisable under Section24 cannot be nullified by reference to the definitionclause in Section 2 (h). (See paras 15, 16, 17, 18 and19)

30. Another Division Bench of this Court in A.V.EDUCATIONAL

SOCIETY v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[[9]]after referring

clause (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 7; clause (af) of sub-section (1)of Section 49; clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 49; clause (i) ofsub-section (1) of Section 7; clause (ag) of sub-section (1) of Section49 held that the Bar Council of India is vested with certain importantpowers to regulate and promote legal education as well as legalprofession. The provisions of Section 7 (h) and (i), 24 (1) (c) (iii) and(iiia), 49 (1) (af) (ag) and (d) of the Act if read conjointly, it makes itabundantly clear that the Bar Council of India will be competent toprescribe the requirement of obtaining approval to affiliation of a LawCollege from it as a condition precedent to recognize its degrees oflaw awarded by the University to which it is affiliated for enrolment asan advocate, as has been done in Rules 17, 18 and 19. After referringto the earlier judgments of this Court in C.M.BALARAM v.REGISTRAR, OSMANIA UNIVERSITY

(AIR 1998 AP 105) wherein this Court held that Bar Council of Indiahas the power and jurisdiction not to approve any Law College withinthe country not complying with the basic norms of the Bar Council ofIndia after conducting inspection by its inspection teams and upheldthe vires of Rules 17, 18 and 19 of the Rules.

31. A learned single Judge of this Court in VEERAVALLICOLLEGE OF LAW, RAJAHMUNDRY v. BAR COUNCIL OF

INDIA[[10]]while dealing with the rejection extension of affiliation forthree years (evening) law course section in the petitioner’s collegeobserved that as recently as in 1993, the Committee of Judgesconstituted by the Honourable the Chief Justice of India has madevarious recommendations to improve the quality of legal education.The Committee inter alia recommended that five-year system of lawcourse after 10 + 2 level be introduced. There is no doubt that the impugned order by the first respondent is passed keeping in view thisrecommendation and there cannot be any challenge to the orderpassed by the bar Council of India on the grounds of arbitrariness andunreasonableness. Further, it is conceded that the Bar Council ofIndia is the apex authority to grant affiliation and oversee the quality oflegal education in this country by virtue of the rules made underSection 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and upheld the order passed bythe Bar Council of India rejecting extension of affiliation for three years(evening) section.

32. The main thrust of Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for thepetitioner in W.P.No.20521 of 2009 is that Explanation added to Rule5 by the BCI is discriminatory among the graduates who obtaineddegree after prosecuting two years Intermediate Course and thosewho have obtained degree without prosecuting two years IntermediateCourse. For the said purpose strong reliance is placed on thejudgment of the Supreme Court in ROSHAN LAL TANDON v. UNIONOF INDIA(4 supra) where the Supreme Court was dealing with thematter of promotion to Grade ‘C’ between direct recruitees andpromotees and held that no discrimination can be made between themfor future promotions which violates Article 14.

33. Similarly, Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court inMERVYN CONTINHO v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

(5 supra) while dealing with the recruitment to the post of PrincipalAppraisers, which prescribes 50% reservation for direct recruitees andthe remaining 50% for the promotees in the Customs Department, heldthe source of recruitment of Principal Appraisers is one, namely, fromthe grade of Appraisers. There is, therefore, no question of any quotabeing reserved from two sources in their cases. In so far, therefore, as the respondent is doing what it calls restoration of seniority of directrecruits in Appraisers' grade when they are promoted to the PrincipalAppraisers' grade, it is clearly denying equality of opportunity toAppraisers, which is the only source of recruitment to the PrincipalAppraisers' grade. When there is only one source of recruitment, thenormal rule will apply, namely, that a person promoted to a highergrade gets his seniority in that grade according to the date ofpromotion subject always to his being found fit and being confirmed inthe higher grade after the period of probation is over. In such a case itis continuous appointment in the higher grade, which determinesseniority for the source of recruitment is one.

34. This Court in G.RAVI KUMAR v. DISTRICT ANDSESSIONS JUDGE, NALGONDA(6 supra) while considering thecase of an attendant in A.P.Last Grade Service working in Unit ofDistrict Court, Nalgonda, who obtained B.A. degree from OpenUniversity without possessing pre-degree qualification like SSC orIntermediate held Rule 8 of A.P. Ministerial Service Rules does notspecifically disqualify Copyists with Degree qualification for beingconsidered for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. Whetherdegree awarded by the Open University is equivalent to the degreeawarded by any other University was already considered by this Courti n MUTHYALA ASHOK v. SHYAMSUNDER (2002 ALD Supp (1)525. Therefore, petitioner cannot be said to be disqualified merelybecause he directly appeared for B. A., examination conducted byDr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University without basic qualification. Veryconcept of Open University is to encourage citizens to acquire betterqualification ignoring whether or not they were having pre-degreequalification. One should not forget that under Article 51a (j) of Constitution, it shall be duty of every citizen to "strive towardsexcellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that thenation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour andachievement". If a citizen acquired higher qualification even though hewas denied opportunity to acquire pre-degree qualification by reasonof social and economic backwardness, he cannot be turned away onthe ground that though he has higher qualification, he lacks basicqualification.

35. I n INDIAN COUNCIL OF LEGAL AID & ADVICE V.BCI[[11]]the Supreme Court while dealing with the jurisdiction of theBar Council of India under Cl.(ag) of Sec.49(1) where Bar Council lays down the ‘conditions’ subject to which “an advocate” shall havethe right to practice, struck down the condition barring enrolment ofpersons who have completed 45 years of age and also struck downthe rule as discriminatory on the ground that once persons who haveenrolled as advocates cannot be discriminated for practice by holdingthat Cl.(ag) of Section 49 (1) of the Advocates Act does not confer anysuch power on Bar Council of India, but the same is not the case onhand. The Bar Council of India had power to regulate the admissioninto law course and recognize such degree for the purpose of enrollingas advocates. The other two judgments, namely, V.N. SUNANDAREDDY V. STATE OF A.P.[[12]]and P.BASI REDDY EDUCATIONAL

SOCIETY V. GOVT.OF A.P.[[13]] are not on the point and are notrelevant to the lis involved in the present writ petitions.

36. The Supreme Court in ANNAMALAI UNIVERSITY v.

SECY. TO GOVT. INFORMATION & TOURISM DEPT.[[14]]referred tothe regulations, framed in exercise of powers conferred upon UGC byclause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the UGC Act; namely, “Admission/students.—(1) No student shall be eligible for admission tothe first degree course through non-formal/distance education unlesshe has successfully completed 12 years’ schooling through anexamination conducted by a board/university. In case there is noprevious academic record, he shall be eligible for admission if he haspassed an entrance test conducted by the University provided that heis not below the age of 21 years on July 1 of the year of admission.”and upheld the order passed by the High Court that M.A. degreeobtained through Open University System, without there being a first(Bachelor’s) degree, was not a valid one and accordingly directed theState Government to take steps to fill up the vacancy of Principal inaccordance with law. The system of imparting education between aConventional University and Open University is different and governedby UGC Act and Open University Act respectively.

37. Further, the Supreme Court in para-41 of its judgment heldthe alternative system envisaged under the Open University Act is notin substitution of the formal system in the matter of ensuring thestandard of education. The distinction between a formal system and aninformal system is in the mode and manner in which education isimparted. The UGC Act was enacted for effectuating coordination anddetermination of standards in universities. The purport and object forwhich it was enacted must be given full effect.

38. The National Knowledge Commission (NKC), constituted in2005 as a high-level advisory body to the Prime Minister of India, callsfor change in the approach to legal education. The NKC stated:

Legal education should…..prepareprofessionals equipped to meet the new challenges and dimensions ofinternationalization , were the nature andorganization of law and legal practice areundergoing a paradigm shift. Further, there isneed for original and path breaking legalresearch to create now legal knowledge andideals that will help meet these challenges in amanner responsive to the needs of the countryand the ideals and goals of our Constitution.

The NKC report calls for education of Indian lawyers to be ready forlaw practice in the global legal environment so that Indian Lawyerscan serve India’s needs—those of all its citizens, businesses,government, and N.G.Os. That is, global readiness is forecast as anintegral part of general legal practice of the future, rather than as thedomain of a small cadre of international law specialists, “Path-breakinglegal research to create new legal knowledge and ideas” must also beunderstood to include representation of India’s poor people, to improvetheir access to justice. Access to justice includes access not only todispute resolution but also access to education, means for meetingbasic needs and other human rights.

39. The task of regulating legal education is mammoth, as thereare over 904 approved law colleges in India (see List of Approved LawColleges (as of October, 1, 2008) Bar Council of India web site)offering law courses. To meet the global challenges, Governmentbodies, including the Bar Council of India, Law Commission of Indiaand University Grants Commission, have convened expert panels thathave recommended legal education reforms, some of which havebeen implemented and some of which are pending. Over the last threedecades, legal educators have recognized that increasingly lawpractice involves parties, events and transactions in more than one

country, legal tradition, and culture. There is spirited debate andexperimentation in the legal education community on how tocoherently infuse perspectives and skills into the law schoolcurriculum and pedagogy to equip students for law practice in ourincreasingly interdependent world. Law schools across the world aresharing their approaches to legal education in light of the swift changein law practice resulting from the current wave of globalisation. TheInternational Association of Law Schools, a non-profit organizationfounded in 2005 with a membership of educational institutions,associations, and legal educators from through the world, facilitatesinteraction among legal educators on the study of multiple legalsystems and legal cultures in law school through its global conferenceactivity and faculty recruitment postings. National level, regional level,and cross-region professional bodies provide platforms for discussionof the international dimensions of legal education. Legal scholars havenamed new paradigms to reflect the reality of globalization and itsimplications for legal practice. Brief exposure to another legal systemthrough study abroad has been distinguished from in-depth of themode of reasoning of another legal system besides the system inwhich the law school is located. To practice law transactionally, lawgraduates need the ability to adapt to different cultures and tocommunicate effectively with lawyers of other jurisdictions and legaltraditions. As Universities and law schools set goals forinternationalization, the university administration can track measuresof activity to assess the degree of engagement. These measures donot assess whether learning goals are being met, they can provide alaw school community with some strategies for infusing perspectivesfrom other countries and legal systems. Educators are also sharingplanning tools for developing inter-university agreements with institutions aboard to expand educational opportunities for theirstudents and faculty. The legal education reform in the framework ofglobalization and contemporary life focuses on the need for lawgraduates to be equipped with a broad range of lawyering skills whenthey enter the profession. While society will always need litigators, theheavy emphasis on litigation in the traditional law school curriculumwarrants fresh thinking in a globalized world in which transnationalmatters are best managed through advance planning and agreement.Development of problem solving invention of creative options forreaching solutions, also enhances the ability of lawyers to grasp thepolicy aspects of law and to contribute to policy-making in their homecountries. Law students in all regions of the world are undertakingaccess to justice work in a variety of clinical projects.

40. Both the NKC and a high-level committee governmentalcommittee have recommended that the professional agencies,including Bar Council of India, be divested of over academic matters toallow universities to exercise control over curricular matters. The NKChas also recommended creation of a rating system for law schools,changes in financing of legal education, measures to attract and retaintalented faculty, curriculum development, changes in the examinationsystem, measures for increasing research at law schools, andmeasures to increase the dimensions of internationalization of lawschools. Even within the current mandated curriculum, there is scopefor legal educators in India to enhance teaching and student learningand play a greater role in developing an agenda for legal educationreform. The need for “socially relevant legal education” to address thelegal needs of the large sector of the Indian population that is sociallyand economically deprived has been emphasized by ProfessorUpendra Baxi.

41. The Bar Council of India issued an initial instructions forestablishment of five year B.A., LL.B. degree programmes in 1979, andby 1984, ten universities had begun the programme. A keybreakthrough in Indian legal education has been the establishment in1986 of a model institution, National Law School of India University inBangalore, at which the five-year B.A., LL.B., degree programmeauthorized earlier was commenced with high standards. Other nationallaw schools have been created on the Bangalore model, andnumerous other law schools in India have adopted the five-yeardegree programme on the same lines. The national law schools areviewed as having improved legal education by introducing academicrigor, interdisciplinary perspectives to enable students to understandlaw in a social context, and clinical training. Professor MoolchandSharma, an eminent law professor and then Vice chairman of theUniversity Grants Commission, observed that the national law schools“brought hopes and positive results in making legal education morequalitatively and professionally attractive for young minds. However,inspiring the national law schools are, however, there is genuineconcern about the quality of the hundreds of other law colleges acrossthe country. Chief Justice of India, K.G.Balakrishnan, addressingconvocation address at NALSAR University Law on July 21, 2007 hadsaid that premier institutes should not only “set the standards of legaleducation but also work towards improving the entire chain of our legalsystem.”

42. Recognizing the need to update the mandated law curriculain India, the University Grants Commission (UGC), which is agovernmental grant-making body responsible for maintaining qualitystandards in institutions of higher education in India, has periodically convened Curriculum Development Committees of subject expertsfrom Indian universities for law subjects. The UGC Chairman statedthe purposes of the model curriculum as follows:

In any country, specially one as large andvaried as India, academic institutions must beallowed enough autonomy and freedom ofaction to frame courses according to specificneeds. The recommendations of theCurriculum Development Committees aremeant to reinforce this. The purpose of ourexercise has been to provide a broadcommon framework for exchange, mobilityand free dialogue across the entire Indianacademic community. Theserecommendations are made in a spirit ofopenness and continuous improvement.”

43. The Bar Council of India recognizes two types of courses forfirst degrees in law, the three-year Bachelor o Law (LL.B.) degree forgraduates holding an initial Bachelor’s degree in any discipline, andthe five year joint Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Law (B.A., LL.B.)degree after twelfth standard. For each of these degree programmes,Bar Council of India mandates that students take not less than twentyeight law subjects, eighteen compulsory substantive law subjects andfour compulsory clinical papers (classes). LL.B. students take sixoptional papers from three or more groups of elective topics, and for aspecialised and/or honours course, a student takes an additional eightpapers from one group. The list of elective course groups that may beoffered is robust, including Constitutional Law, Business Law,International Trade Law, Crimes and Criminology, International Law,Law and Agriculture, and Intellectual Property Law, and auniversity/school may add to the subjects and groups. (See ScheduleII of BCI Legal Education Rules, 2008)

44. It is not disputed that all the National Law Schools are insisting 10+2 to prosecute five years law course, but the standardsare not uniform in all the law colleges where five years law degree isoffered. Therefore, to have uniform standards in the law course either itis five years or three years, the BCI was vested with the jurisdiction torecognise Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification forenrolment as an advocate and confer with the power to make the rulesfor laying the standards of legal education in consultation with theUniversities regulate admission to the law course prescribing thequalification to get admission. When the degree obtained by formal ornon-formal methods, though it is of three years duration, both cannotbe equated for the purpose of admission into law course. Therefore,graduation degree obtained through regular class is a different classthan those who obtained graduation without prosecuting 10+2qualification. Therefore, the judgments on which reliance is placed bythe learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

45. Admittedly, the task to maintain legal standards was referredto an expert body like “Legal Education Committee” and theCommittee after due deliberation with eminent personnel connectedwith the law course suggested standards to be maintained to meet theglobal challenges. The students who obtained graduation throughregular course are well equipped and their accent is different ininformation and resources once they are in law practice, whereas thestudents who obtained bachelor’s degree under Open University willnot be equipped with rare degrees of qualities. Therefore, thecurriculum, which was finalised by the BCI, cannot be termed asperverse or irrational to the object sought to be achieved nor can it betermed as arbitrary and illegal.

46. In view of the same, the challenge of the petitioners must failand the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

________________

A.GOPAL REDDY, J.

__________________________

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

31-12-2009Murthy/kmr

[1](1995) 1 SCC 732

[2]1990 (1) An.W.R. 648

[3]1995 Suppl .(2) SCC 235

[4]AIR 1967 SC 1889

[5]AIR 1967 SC 52

[6]2008 (3) ALD 624

[7](2007) 12 SCC 210

[8]AIR1972 AP 206

[9]2002 (3) ALD 716 (DB)

[10]2000 (2) ALD 487

[11](1995) 1 SCC 732

[12]1995 Supp (2) SCC 235

[13]1990(1) An.W.R. 648

[14](2009) 4 SCC 590