Dismissed

Maharishi Dayanand Law College v. Commissioner, Department of College Education

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2021CW/14736/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed writ petitions filed by students of the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category seeking regularization of their LL.B. admission. The Court held that EWS category students do not have statutory claim for relaxation in minimum qualifying marks under the Bar Council of India Rules and thus were not eligible.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; interim order permitting examination appearance vacated; stay application rejected.

Maharishi Dayanand Law College Vs Commissioner… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14677/2020

¶3

Anand Sharma S/o Sh. Harish Chand Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of 1814, Govind Rav Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpol Bazar Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

Deepak Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Moti Shankar Gupta, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of 9, Khoh, Rajgarh, Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

Nidhan Acharya S/o Sh. Yogesh Acharya, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of 703, Acharyon Ki Haveli, Acharyon Ka Rasta, Ward No. 74, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of College Education, Block-Iv, Registered Office- Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur-302006.

¶9

University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Dean, Registered Office - Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Rajasthan University Campus, Talvandi, Jaipur- 302004

¶10

Chairman, Maharishi Dayanand Law College, Barfkhana, Jawahar Nagar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302004

¶11

Bar Council Of India (Bci), Through Its Secretary, Registered Office - 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi-110002

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With]

¶14

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14736/2020

¶15

Maharishi Dayanand Law College, Barf Khana, Jawahar Nagar Road, Jaipur - 302004 Through Its Principal

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

Commissioner, Department Of College Education, BlockIv, Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal

¶19

(2 of 9)

¶20

[CW-14677/2020]

¶21

Nehru Marg, Jaipur- 302015 (Rajasthan-India)

¶22

The University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar.

¶23

Bar Council Of India, 21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 002 Through Its Secretary

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, through VC with Ms. Harshita Sharma Mr. Anmol Vyas Mr. Aditya Sharma

¶26

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶27

Judgment

¶28

Reserved on : 28/09/2021 Pronounced on : 01/10/2021

¶29

The petitioner No.1 to 3 herein belong to category of Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and have secured 43.47%, 44.25% and 42.33% marks respectively in their graduation.

¶30

For admission in LL.B. three year course, a candidate is required to secure minimum 45% marks in graduation.

¶31

The Commissionrate of College Education, State of Rajasthan issued an admission policy 2019-20, according to which, the candidates belonging from SC/ST/OBC/MBC and EWS would be given relaxation of 5% in the qualifying marks for admission in the law course.

¶32

After promulgation of the policy, the petitioners considering themselves to be eligible for admission in law course applied for and were granted admission by the Maharishi Dayanand Law College (respondent No.3).

¶33

(3 of 9)

¶34

[CW-14677/2020]

¶35

According to the petitioners, they disclosed every relevant fact, including the marks secured in graduation when the respondent - College admitted them in the LL.B. Course. It is the assertion of the petitioners that according to admission policy promulgated by the State, they were entitled for 5% relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks and hence, they were enrolled for LL.B. Course.

¶36

Pursuant to the admission given by the respondent College, the petitioners deposited requisite fees and pursued the course. 7. When the petitioners submitted their examination forms for appearing in the final examination of the first year, the Rajasthan University (to which the College - respondent No.3 is affiliated) did not issue their admission cards.

¶37

Upon queries being made by the petitioners, their College informed that the University has not allowed the petitioners to take the examination as they having secured less than 45% marks in graduation be admitted in the law course.

¶38

Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition, seeking direction to the respondents to regularize their admission and to permit them to complete the law course. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly apprised the Court about the requisite facts and then, argued that the petitioners had disclosed all facts based on which the respondent No.3 – College admitted them in three years law course. He emphasised that the same was done in light of the admission policy of the State Government, which clearly provided that the students belonging to EWS category shall be entitled for 5% relaxation in minimum qualifying marks.

¶39

(4 of 9)

¶40

[CW-14677/2020]

¶41

Learned counsel argued that though the petitioners were given admission by the respondent College but nevertheless they were enrolled by the University and hence, the respondents cannot take away their right of pursuing the LL.B. Course and leave them in lurch, particularly when the admission policy of the State Government considers them to be eligible for pursuing law course.

¶42

Learned counsel argued that their College had issued letter to the University and State Government and sought clarification from them, however, no response was given by the State Government. And, when the petitioners underwent Ist year course, the respondents restrained them from appearing in the examination solely on the basis of the communication dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India.

¶43

It was argued by learned counsel that the order/communication dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India cannot take away petitioners’ right, which have flown to them pursuant to EWS reservation accorded by the State Government and by virtue of the admission policy of 2019-2020. 14. In support of his contention aforesaid, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments :

¶44

(i) Prahlad Kumar Vs. University of Raj., reported in 1985 SCC Online Raj. 283;

¶45

(ii) Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur, reported in (1989) 1 SCC 399 and

¶46

(iii) Sangeeta Shrivastava Vs. Prof. U.N. Singh, 1979 SCC Online Del 202.

¶47

Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the respondent - University argued that the petitioners are ineligible to get admission in the law course and merely because the respondent – College has given them admission, they can neither

¶48

(5 of 9)

¶49

[CW-14677/2020]

¶50

claim any equity nor can they continue with the course, as their admission per-se was contrary to law.

¶51

Learned senior counsel invited Court’s attention towards following Note appended with the admission policy of 2019-20 :-

¶52

“ uksV % ckj dkWafly vkWQ bf.M;k ds fu;e ekU; gksaxsa A ”

¶53

He argued that the mandate of the State Government can govern percentage of reservation, applicable fee and age etc., however, the same cannot override the statutory provision in relation to educational qualification, which lies strictly within the domain of the Bar Council of India. 18. Court’s attention was invited towards the order dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India in order to justify its stand that the petitioners are not eligible.

¶54

Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners are not eligible and the State’s policy cannot be read as a statute, more so when the statutory body – Bar Council of India has not granted any relaxation to EWS category students in the minimum qualifying marks. 20. Learned counsel cited judgment dated 14.08.2019 rendered by the Principal seat in case of Amarjeet Kaur Vs. Jai Narayan Vyas University & Ors. (SBCWP No.3500/2019), particularly para No.16 thereof, which reads thus :

¶55

“16. It is pertinent to note that the standard of legal education in the Country is regulated by Bar Council of India, a statutory body constituted under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1961. As a matter of fact, the recognition to the University whose degree in law shall be qualification for enrollment is also granted by the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education framed in exercise of the power conferred under the Act of 1961, defines the recognized University and also makes provisions regarding the eligibility for admission to the professional law courses, minimum marks in

¶56

(6 of 9)

¶57

[CW-14677/2020]

¶58

qualifying examination for admission in such courses, as also the academic standards and the course to be studied etc. In the considered opinion of this Court, the norms laid down for regulating the admission to LL.B. professional courses cannot be relaxed even by the recognized University and thus, the condition of the minimum qualifying marks for admission to Integrated Five Years’ Law Course and Three Years’ LL.B. Course, has to be strictly adhered to and nobody can be permitted to apply for getting admitted into said courses by relaxing the eligibility criteria prescribed.”

¶59

Heard.

¶60

Before deliberating further, it would be worthwhile to have an appraisal of statutory position :-

¶61

As per Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (“the Act of 1961”), the Bar Council of India is responsible to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Section 49(1)(af) empowers the Bar Council to make rules prescribing the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of Degree in Law in any recognized University. Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules for Legal Education, 2008, prescribes minimum marks in qualifying examination for admission. Accordingly, Bar Council is empowered to prescribe minimum percentage of marks not below 45% of the total marks in case of General category applicants, 42% for OBC category and 40% marks in case of SC/ST applicants in the qualifying examination for the purpose of applying for and getting admission in a Law Degree Program of any recognized University. It is further provided that such minimum qualifying marks shall not automatically entitle a student/candidate to get admission into an institution but shall only entitle the student/candidate concerned to fulfill other institutional criteria notified by the respective

¶62

(7 of 9)

¶63

[CW-14677/2020]

¶64

institution or by the Government concerned from time to time to apply for admission. It is not disputed before this Court that presently, the minimum marks in qualifying examination prescribed by the Bar Council of India for admission to LL.B. Course is 45%.

¶65

The law governing the minimum qualification and corresponding relaxation as noticed in para-19 above shows that though relaxation of percentage of marks in qualifying exam has been given to the applicants (belonging to OBC category 42% and SC/ST category 40%), but no such relaxation has been provided to the applicants belonging to EWS category.

¶66

In the absence of any relaxation given under the Rules of 2008, in the opinion of this Court, the purported relaxation granted by the State vide its admission policy of 2019-20, cannot be applied particularly when the admission policy itself is subservient to the Rules and regulations framed by the Bar Council of India.

¶67

Having perused the material and after considering the arguments of rival counsel and in the face of the order dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Bar Council of India, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners are ineligible to be admitted to LL.B. three years Course.

¶68

The communication dated 29.07.2019 passed by the Bar Council of India is very categorical; it shows that the BCI has only agreed to confer the reservation to EWS category, however, refused to compromise on the quality of legal profession.

¶69

No relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks has been agreed to.

¶70

(8 of 9)

¶71

[CW-14677/2020]

¶72

Adverting to the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in case of Prahlad Kumar Vs. University of Rajasthan, on perusal of the facts noticed therein clearly shows that the petitioner was admitted in the LL.B. course and was allowed to appear in the examination of the 1^st year by the University (1982) and thereafter when they were restrained from appearing in the subsequent examination (1983), this Court had taken a view that the University and the College having allowed the petitioner therein to pass 1^st year cannot be permitted to raise the question of eligibility. Whereas in the present case, the University, at the first available opportunity did not allow the petitioner to appear. The case cited by the petitioner is thus, clearly distinguishable on facts.

¶73

The judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sangeeta Shrivastava (supra) is premised on the principle that College was an agent of the University. Such relationship of Principal and Agent is too far-fetched in the present facts. This Court respectfully disagrees with the view of the Delhi High Court that “admission was at the most irregular and thus, the Principle that there can be no estoppel against statute will have no application.” In the opinion of this Court, the admission to the petitioners was per-se illegal. Lack of eligibility or qualifying marks hits at the very root and an admission without qualifying marks cannot be considered as irregular.

¶74

In view of the aforesaid and following the observation made in para No.16 of the judgment in case of Amarjeet Kaur (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners, who have secured less than 45% marks in their qualifying examination are/were not eligible to be admitted in LL.B. Course and merely

¶75

(9 of 9)

¶76

[CW-14677/2020]

¶77

because the respondent No.3 – College has given them admission in the College, they cannot claim any equity much less, right to continue with the law course.

¶78

Resultantly, the writ petition fails. Interim order passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners permitting them to appear in examination for LL.B. First Year-2020 is vacated. The examination of the petitioners pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court shall stand cancelled.

¶79

The stay application stands rejected.

¶80

SBCWP No.14736/2020 :-

¶81

Present petition filed by the College raises the same issue, of course in support of the petitioners.

¶82

Following the reasoning given in the order relating to writ petition (SBCWP No.14677/2020) filed by the students, nothing remains to be considered in this writ petition. Hence, the same also stands dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court in favour of Manish Kumar Sharma and Ashna Sharma permitting them to appear in examination for LL.B. First Year-2020 is vacated. The examination of both these students pursuant to the interim order of this Court shall stand cancelled.

¶83

The stay application also stands rejected.

¶84

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶85

s-171-172-ArunV/-

Maharishi Dayanand Law College v. Commissioner, Department of College Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharishi Dayanand Law College v. Commissioner, Department of College Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Paam Drugs Pharmaceuticals Vs

Naraendra Kumar and Others Vs Anuj Kumar and Others

Icici Lombard Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Subhash Chand Sharma and Ors.

Sourabh Kumar Jeengar S/O Shri Manoj Kumar Jeengar Vs State of Rajasthan

Suvalal S/O Jamnalal Vs Ghansilal S/O Shri Bhonrilal

Sarjeet Singh Rathore S/O Magan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan