Dismissed

Kevin Sukirthy v. The Telangana State Bar Council

Telangana HC14 Oct 2024WP/13037/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Telangana State Bar Council's refusal to enrol the petitioner as an Advocate. The petitioner, who obtained graduation through Distance Education, argued for enrolment under Article 226. The bench dismissed the petition at the admission stage, holding the matter covered by precedents debaring Open University/Distance Education graduates from law

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition and miscellaneous applications pending therein without costs.

Kevin Sukirthy Vs The Telangana State Bar Council — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13037 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kevin Sukirthy, S/o. K.Steven, aged about 40^years, Occ; Lawyer, R/o. 12-13S58, Hanuman nagar, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Telangana - 500017.

¶9

,....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Telangana State Bar Council, Rep.^By its Secretary,^{High Court, Hyderabad.}

¶12

.....RESPONDENT

¶13

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of 'Mandamus' declaring the action of the^{respondentby not enrolling the} petitioner into the State rolls as an Advocate. with the respondent though fully qualified/ eligible to be enrolled as an Advocate into the State rolls as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, unfair and contrary to the^{principles of natural} justice and violating the fundamental rights protected under Article 14, Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 21 of the Constilution of lndia, and consequently direct^the respondent to immediately initiate enrolment^process of^{the petitioner and enroll} the petitioner as an Advocate tn the inlerest of iustice.

¶14

LA.NO:1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition Under Section¹ 51 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to} issue interim orders directing the Respondent^{to provide the petitioner witha}

¶16

I r i

¶17

Temporary Enrolment^{Numberforthwith,in the interestof} .iustice^pending disposal of the above^{writ petition'}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRID.RAMAKRISHNA}

¶19

counsel for the^{Respondent: SRI G.M.MOHIUDOIN}

¶20

The Court at the stage^{of admission made the followingORDER}

¶21

I I

¶22

¶23

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE B. VTJAYSENREDDY} WRIT PETITI^{ON No.l 3037 0F 2024}

¶24

ORDER:^(ORAL)

¶25

This writ^{petitionis filed by the petitioner seekingto declare} action of^{the respondent- the TelanganaState Bar Council'Hyderabad'} in not enrolling^{him in to the State rolls as an Advocatethough he is} fully^{qualifredand eligibleto be enrolledas an Advocate'as illegal'} arbitrary,^{unjust' unreasonable'unfair' contrary to the principles of} natural^{justiceand in violation of the fundamental rights under} Articles^{14, 19(l\g)and 21 ofthe Constitution of, tndialand sought a} consequential^{direction to the respondent to immediatelyinitiate} enrolment^{process of the petitionerand to enrolhim into the Staterolls} as an Advocate.

¶26

The^{facts leading to fiting of the writ petition are as under:}

¶27

2.1. The Petitioner^{submittedhis enrolment aPPlicationto the} respondent^{on I I .01.202 Iby paying requisitet-ees and necessary} documents.^{tle passed S.S.C. in March1999 throughregular School} study.^{Later,he joined intennediateM'P'C' (Maths'Physicsand} Chemistry)^{in June 1999,but could not continuehis studies due to} financial^{constraints' In January/February 2003' he appliedfor regular}

¶28

¶29

¶30

intermediate examinations^(Board of Intermediate Education) under 'Tatkal Scheme' for changing his subjects to C.E.C. (Civics, Economics and Commerce) to allow him to write intermediate examinations as a private candidate without college study for March 2003 examinations and he was accorded permission accordingly; except Economics^(first year subject), he passed remaining subjects in the intermediate. In June, 2003, he applied for Degree (B.Com.) under Directorate of Distance Education course offered by Madurai Kamaraj (.lniversity at Madurai, Tamilnadu, and got admission u ith Registration No.A4A2623204, Study Center No.839 at Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), Telangana. He appeared for both intermediate and graduation examinations simultaneously in 2004; and in March 2005. while he was in second year of graduation, he passed intennediate; and in November 2006, he passed graduation (B.Com. ) fiom Madurai Karnaraj Uni versity, Madurai, Tamilnadu.

¶31

2.2. lt is stated that the petitioner applied for TS LAWCET - l0l7 conducted by Kakatiya University, Warangal, appeared for entrance examination on 27.05.2017 with Hall Ticker No.3l2ll06ll and secured Rank - 3949. He belongs to Christian Minority, Backward Class - 'C'Category and secured the seat in three years l-L.B. Course

¶32

¶33

in Marwadi Siksha^{Samithi LawCollege,Chaderghat, Hyderabad'} affiliated to Osmania^{University.He completedLL'B' in September} 2020. He applied^{for TS PGLCET -7O2Ofor admissioninto} LL.M. Course, appeared^{for entrance examination andsecured} Rank-98;hegotadmissionin.CriminotogyandCriminalJustice System' Course^{in the UniversityCollegeof Law, Osmania University} Campus, Hyderabad.^{Before joiningLL'M', he submitted application} dated 11.01.2021^{to the respondentunder Section 24 oftheAdvocates} Act 1961 for^{his enrolmentas an Advocate by paying requisitefee and} submitting necessary^{documentsalong with the sworn affidavit'}

¶34

2.3. It is submitted^{that the respondent kept delayingthe} enrolment application^{of the petitioner'The petitionermade several} visits to the respondent^{and followedup with the enrolment process'} but every time,^{he was informed thatdue to COVID -19 restrictions'} enrolment is not^{being done and he would be informed in due course'} The^{petitioner submitted a representation to the Secretary of the} respondent on^{27.01.2023requesting to consider his application for} enrolment as^{an Advocate. By the letter dated 08'02'2021' he was} informed that^{as per LegalEducation Rules2008'particularly} Rule 5(a) and^{(b) o&4he Rules, as he completed his intermediate in}

¶35

ill

¶36

¶37

2005 and graduation in 2006, his application for enrolment as an Advocate cannot be considered.

¶38

3.1. The respondent filed counter stating that the writ petition is liabte to be dismissed in limine. Whether a person who obtains graduation degree by pursuing studies through Open University / Distance Education mode is entitled for enrolment as an Advocate or not has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of this Court in M. Naveen Kumar v. State of Telangadal. In Katroth pradeep Rathod v. Bar Council of India2, another Division Bench of this Court considered similar issue and held that a person who pursues his graduation through Open University / Distance Education mode is nor entitled to seek enrolment as an Advocate. The petitioner admittedly completed graduation (B.Com.) through the Directorate of Distance Ed ucat i on, M audra i Kamraj University, Madurai, Tamilnadu.

¶39

Heard the petitioner who appeared as party-in-person, and Mr. G.M. Mohiuddin, leamed standing counsel for the respondenr, and perused the rnaterial on record.

¶40

I w.A. No.5g7 of 1020 and batch dated 2g.12.2021 : w.1,. No.15880 of 1022 and batch dale d ZO.|O.2O23

BVtrl

The petitioner^{submittedthat there is no restriction for} enrotling a candidate^{who has acquired graduation degree through} Distance Education^{mode and later pursuedlaw course' The petitioner} referred to^{proviso to Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rulesand} contended that^{the Rulemakes it clearthat a personprosecuting studies} in Distance Education^{before joining5 / 3 years LL'B'course'as the} case may be,^{is entitled to be enrolledas an Advocate'}

¶46

However,^{the leamed standing coi'rnset lor the respondent} submitted that^{the issueis no more res integra and in view of the} decision of a Division^{Benchof this Court in Naveen Kumar's case} (Supra l), the wdt^{petition is liable to be dismissed' The leamed} standing counsel^{submitted that explanation to Rule 5 of the Legal} Education Rules^{has been consideredby the Division Benchof this} Court and it^{was heldthat a personwhohas acquiredgraduation degree} through Distance^{Education mode is not eligiblelor admissionin law}

courses.

Rule 5 ofthe Legal Education Rules is as under:

¶51

"5. Eligibility for admission:

¶52

(a) Three year Lr course: An applicant who has graduated,n rt*'uttut ny discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of parliament or by a state regisrature or an equivarent nationar institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognized as equivarent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to decrare equivalence. may apply for a three ye4rs, degree program in lau. Ieading to conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular program conducted by a Universitl,rvhose de Bar Councir or'rndia ..,rt;J.'.::;'#::::1"^{* ."}

¶53

(b) lntegrated Degree program: An applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondarl, School course ('+2') or equivalent (such as Il+1, .A, Ievel in Senior School l_eaving certificate course) from a recognizod [ ]niversity of India or outside or from a Senior Sccondan. l]oard or equivalent, constituted or 6 Bar Council ol'India recognized by the Union or by a State Covernmcnt or fiom any equivalent instifution from a loreign countn. recognized by the govemment of that countrv firr the purpose of issue of quali$ing certificate on successful cornpletion of the-coirse, may apply for and be adnritrcd into thc program of the Centres of Legal Education to obtain the integrated degree in law with a

¶54

¶55

¶56

degree in any other subject as the first degree from the Univenity whose such a degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.

¶57

Provided that applicants who have obtained + 2 I{igher Secondary Pass Certifrcate or First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as cligible lor admission in the Integrated Five Years course or three years' LL.B. course, as the case may be.

¶58

Explanation: The applicants who, have obtained l0 + 2 or graduation / post graduatiirn through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible fbr admission in the law courses.

¶59

The decision of the Division Bench in Naveen Kumar's case

¶60

(Supra l) was considered by the Division Bench in Katroth Pradeep

¶61

Rathod's case (Supra 2) and it was held as under:

¶62

" 19.^'l'he Full Bench of High Court of Madras in C.S. Jagadcesh v. Chairman, 3 year LLB Admissioru The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University (AIR 2018 Mad 243), had an occasion to deal with the eligibility of candidates to seek admission into law courses on obtaining one of their previous ccrtitlcates by 2 AIR 2018 Mad 243.:ll;: appearing as a privare candidate.^'the Full Bench (speaking through the Hon'ble Justicc Ms. Indira Banerjee, as Her Lordship then was) by taking note of

,t I

BVnJ

the Scheme of the Act and Rules framed thereunder and that the objecr rhat was sought to be achieved, had held that a candidate whose immediate qualifuing certificate was obtained from Open University could not be admined into the course of law. The relevant observations are as under:

¶67

"30. On a pcrusal of Rule 5(a), it is patently clear that it was the intenrion of the Bar Council of Indi4 that for admission to the Three year taw Course, a candidate ul t onl a ua b a com letion ola ular co a or an institurion recognized by , and/or affiliated to a university. or a deemed university or equivalent institution and in case of admission to the Integrated Degree Programme. an applicant should have obtained a Senior Secondary School Certificate (+2) or equivalent certificate such as ll+2 or^.A. level Senior School Leaving Cenificarc liom a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or recognized by the Union or by a State Govemment. on successful completion of the course and/or in other words. hr raking admission in and going through a regular coursc. ft to be the lt, of the rules thol lhL, immelia and/or depree sho uld ho ve been oblained 0n of a regular course. As observed above, completion of a course through the distance or correspondence method is to be deemcd to be at par with a regular course ofstudy which requires phy sical attendancc ofclasses.

¶68

There t\ a di ffere nce betw een oDen universi ties d other unit ersI ti(s and/or boa rds. in that som cof these 0Denun It ers itics cnable cand idates, who donot have

¶69

¶70

the basic oualifications. to obtain hisher oualificetions stra twa . By prosecuting studies through^open universities, it may be^possible for a candidate to^obtaina Post Graduate Degree or a Three Year LLB^{Degree without} being a graduate or to obtain a^{graduatedegree withoul} having the Senior Secondary School Certificate. In^our view, the Bar Council of India. in its wisdom^. framed^the Lepal Educalion rules makins a^sraduate uDon Drosecut n of a reeular course from a^untvers whose degree in Law is recognized bv the Bar Council^{of India.} o mandotory elisibilitv criteria.

¶71

57.^'the lanpuape and tenor of^{Rules 5(a)and 5(b) read} $,ith the /irst^proviso and t. ExDlandfion make it^amDly clcar thot orosecution of a pular course is only lbr the immedia Iely Drevious oualifvinp^certificale aruL/ctr dc ee. for example, ate desree for the Three I urr LLB Course and Senior Se^{condarvCertilicateforthe} lnt(sralcd De ee Prosram. Had the Rules^intended othcnvise. the Rules would^{havespecifically provided that} candidates would not be eligible^{foradmission to the Three} Year [-l.ll unless they had obtained the^Secondaryand Senior Sccondary Certificates upon^{prosecution of studies} thmugh a regular course or^{throughdistanceor} corrcspondence mode The Bar Council of India^has, in ils tt'isdom, chosen lo frame rules^wh ereunder^{a Senior} Suondart Examinalion uDon Drosec ution of a rePular course is mandalorv onlv for admbsion to^{l.'he Inlesraled} Desree Cource and a sroduate desrce in anv^dbcipline unot, successful comDletion of a regular course. ma dolqry for admission lo the Three Year LLB Course.

¶72

¶73

Further, in^{the case of M- NaveenKumar v' Slate oJ} Telangana^{(Order dt.28.12.2021 in WA.No'597of 2O20),a} Division^{Benchof this Court had an occasionto consider as to} whether the^{prescriptionof having a first degreeby undergoing a} regular course of^{study,as eligibilitycriteriafor admission into} L.L.B course to^{the exclusionof the candidateswho cleared the} first degree course^{through other modes of education, viz.,Open} University, by^{attendingclasses on weekend,to whomadmission} into L.L.B. Course^{was denied, andby considering the Full} Bench^judgment of the^{High Counof Madras and also having} regard to the Rules of^{Legal Education framed under the Act, this} Court had held that^{the appellants/petitionersbefore this Courtin} the said Writ appeals/writ^{petitions do not fulfill the eligibility} criteria for seeking^{admissioninto3 year L-L-B.Course.}

¶74

¶75

2l- The full bench ol^{the I IighCourt of Madrasrn} P.Raji's case (l supra)^{had an occasionto consider the issue as} raised under the^{present writpetitions. -fhe Full Benchwhile} reiterating that^{the eligibilitycriteria providedin the explanation} to Rule 5 of the^{Rules was mandatory to seek admissionintoa} course of law,^{andthata candidatewho pursued their first degree} from an Open lJniversity^{u'as thusdebarredfromseeking} admission into 3^year L.[..8^{course. It was further held thatfor} candidates to^{seek enrollmentas an adt'ocate it was mandatory} that they were validly^{admitted into the courseof law."}

¶76

It is an admitted^case ol^{the petitioner that he pursued} graduation (B.Com.) through^{DistanceEducation and later passed} LL.B. The case of^{the petitioner is squarely coveredby the decision}

¶77

¶78

of the Division^{Benchof this court in KatrothPradeep Rathodts}

¶79

case (Supra^{2). Thus, thereare no merits in the writ petition'}

¶80