Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Ajay Malik vs Punjab University Through Its ... on 29 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: AIR1992P&H308, AIR 1992 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 308, (1994) ILR 2 P&H 448 (1992) 2 SERVLR 507, (1992) 2 SERVLR 507
ORDER N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. The primary question of law which arises for decision in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Punjab University, Chandigarh (hereinafter called, 'the University'), constituted under the Punjab University Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') could fix a condition of eligibility for admission to the first year class of the LL.B. course, which is higher than the minimum qualification prescribed by the Bar Council of India under S. 49(1)(af) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as 'the 1961 Act').
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows:
The petitioner who obtained a degree of Bachelor of Arts from the Delhi University in the year 1990-91 securing 40. 78% marks, applied for admission to the first year class of the LL.B. course of the University. It is not disputed that 15 seats in the Department of Laws were reserved for Sportsmen and the petitioner who claims to be an outstanding sportsman, applied for one of these reserved seats. It is his case that on the basis of his past performance in sports, particularly in the game of cricket and the trials conducted on September 17, 1991 by the Sports Committee of the University, he was recommended by the said committee for admission to the first year class of the LL.B. course, but, in spite of this, the Law Department did not call him for interview whereas candidates much lower to him in the sports category had been admitted. The only reason for refusing admission to the petitioner was that he was found ineligible inasmuch as he did not fulfil the requirement of 45% of the aggregate marks in the Bachelor's degree which was the minimum prescribed by the University for seeking admission to the said course. The petitioner contended that since he possessed the minimum qualification required for admission to a course for a degree in law as prescribed by the Bar Council of India in exercise of the power conferred on it by S. 49(1)(af) of the 1961 Act, he was eligible to be admitted to the course or at least to be considered for admission for one of the seats reserved for sportsmen and the said minimum qualification of Bachelor's degree was binding on the University which could not prescribe any higher qualification for the purpose.
3. Before dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Regulations framed by the University in regard to the admission to the Department of Laws, Ss. 7 & 49 of the 1961 Act and the Bar Council of India Rules framed thereunder :--
"Punjab University Calendar Volume II, 1988.
'Faculty of Law' Bachelor of Laws
1. to 2. xxxxx
3. The minimum qualification for admission to the first year class of the LL.B. course shall be one of the following:
(a) A Bachelor's degree in any faculty of the Punjab University with at least 45 per cent of the aggregate marks;
(b) a degree in any faculty of any other University recognised as equivalent to the corresponding degree of the Punjab University, with at least 45% of the aggregate marks.
Provided xxxxx Provided that the Punjab University, may recognise the degree of any other University of India if it is recognised by the Bar Council of India.
Section 7(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 Functions of Bar Council of India : The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be-
(a) to (g) xxxxx
(h) 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 :
(i) to recognise Universities whose degree in law shall be qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities;
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 :
General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules : -- (1) The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe -
(a) to (ac) xxxxx (af) the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognised University:
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA RULES PART IV Section -
(1) Save as provided in S. 24(1)(c)(iiia) of the Act, a degree in law obtained from any University in the territory of India after the 12th day of March, 1967 shall not be recognised for purposes of Section 24(1)(c)(iii) of the Act unless the following conditions are fulfilled :--
(a)That at the time of joining the course of instruction in law for a degree in law, he is a graduate of a University or possesses such academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to a graduate's degree of versity by the Bar Council of India:
(b) & (c) xxxxx XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX"
4. The 1961 Act enacted by the Parliament falls under Entry-26 of List-Ill of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, which reads as under :--
"Legal, medical and other professions."
A reading of Sections 7 and 49(1) of the 1961 Act makes it abundantly clear that Bar Council of India is invested with the responsibility of ensuring standards of legal education and it is also empowered to prescribe the minimum conditions of eligibility for admission to the law course for the purpose of recognising law degrees awarded by the Universities.
5. The Act, on the other hand, is relatable to Entry-25 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which reads, as under:--
"Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65, 66 of List I, vocational and technical training of labour."
The University having been constituted under the Act, its Senate and Syndicate have been given powers to frame Regulations and Rules regarding the conditions to be complied with by candidates, not being students of any college affiliated to the University for degrees, diplomas, licences, titles, marks of honour, scholarships and prizes conferred or granted by the University. The University has also the power to frame Regulations for the courses of study to be followed and the conditions to be complied with by candidates for any university examination and for degrees, diplomas, licences, titles, marks of honour, scholarships and prizes conferred or granted by the University. In exercise of these powers, the University has for its 'Faculty of Law' framed amongst others, Regulation-3, the relevant extract of which has been reproduced earlier. This Regulation provides for the minimum qualification for admission to the first year class of the LL.B. course namely, that a candidate for admission possesses a Bachelor's degree with at least 45% of the aggregate marks. As has been noticed above, the Bar Council of India in its Rules has provided that a degree in law obtained, from any University in the territory of India after the 12th day of March, 1967, shall not be recognised for purposes of Sec. 24(1)(c)(iii) of the 1961 Act unless at the time of joining the course of instruction in law for a degree in law, the candidate is a graduate of a University or possesses such academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to a graduate's degree of a University by the Bar Council of India. It would be seen that, the power of the Bar Council is to prescribe only a minimum condition of eligibility for admission for purposes of recognising a University degree so that a certain level of legal education could be maintained but it does not imply that a University to maintain its own academic standards is prohibited from raising the minimum qualification as prescribed by the Bar Council. In other words, if the University prescribes any condition of eligibility for admission to the law degree course which is lower than the condition of eligibility prescribed by the Bar Council, the latter can refuse to recognise the law degree conferred by the University for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate. For instance, the University could prescribe that no candidate who has secured less than 50% marks in the Bachelor's degree would be eligible for admission to the law course. Such a clause in the University Regulations would not contravene the rules framed by the Bar Council, In the present case, the University has prescribed the condition of 45% of the aggregate marks in the Bachelor's degree, which is the qualifying examination for admission. This could certainly be done.
6. The matter can be looked at from yet another angle. Even if one were to assume, as was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the condition of eligibility for admission to the LL.B. course as prescribed by the Bar Council of India was binding on the University, it has to be appreciated that sub-clause (af) of Clause (1) of Section 49 of the 1961. Act only empowers the Bar Council to make rules in regard to the minimum qualification required for admission to a degree in law in any recognised University and not that the University cannot prescribe any eligibility which is higher than the one prescribed by the Bar Council. It is, therefore, open to the University to prescribe a higher qualification and the same is permissible under the 1961 Act. A somewhat similar matter though not relating to legal education came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Punjab University v. Ashwinder Kaur, AIR 1991 P&H 166. After noticing the earlier case law on the subject including the judgments of the Supreme Court in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823; D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1762; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath, AIR 1971 SC 2560 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sant Lal v. State of Haryana, (1978) 1 Serv LR 133, it was observed as under;--
"It will be seen from Regulation No. 3.1 prescribing the qualification for admission to M.Lib., that these are the minimum qualifications. In other words, the admission cannot be made by prescribing lower qualifications than mentioned in Regulation No. 3.1. However, this did not debar the Authorities to lay down higher qualifications for the purpose of admission."
Again in para 13 of the judgment, the conclusion arrived at was "In view of the authoritative pronouncements, we are of the view that there is nothing wrong to lay down the higher qualifications for the purpose of admission to a particular course than the minimum prescribed". Similar is the view taken by a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Sobhana Kumar S. v. The Mangalore University, AIR 1985 Kant 223.
7. Thus, while answering the contention raised on behalf of the writ petitioner against him, it is held that the University is not bound by the condition of eligibility laid down by the Bar Council of India and in case 'the former.' prescribed any condition lower than the one prescribed by the Bar Council it would be open to 'the latter' not to recognise the degree awarded by the University. Even otherwise, what is prescribed by the Bar Council is only the minimum qualification for admission and, therefore, it is open to the University to prescribe higher qualifications while admitting students to the LL.B. course.
8. Having failed in his primary contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner then urged that the condition of eligibility as prescribed by the University requiring 45% of the aggregate marks in the Bachelor's degree was repugnant to the rules framed by the Bar Council whereunder the requirement was only of being a graduate of any University and, therefore, the latter would prevail. The argument, thus, is that the Rules framed under the 1961 Act which cover the exclusive field of legal education under Entries 77 and 78 of List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution must prevail over the Regulation framed by the University in exercise of its power under a law which is relatable to Entry-25 of List-III of Seventh Schedule. There is no merit in this submission either as we find no repugnancy between the two provisions. As already observed earlier, the 1961 Act authorises the Bar Council to frame rules providing for the minimum qualification for admission to a law course in any University. The University on its part while admitting students can always devise a criteria higher than the minimum prescribed by the Bar Council and merely because the two criterion are different does not make them repugnant so as to attract the provisions of Art. 254 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, we need not refer to the case law cited on behalf of the writ petitioner as we find that the same is not relevant to the facts of the present case.
9. Lastly, it was urged that Regulation-3 framed by the University requiring at least 45% of the aggregate marks in the Bachelor's degree is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it classifies the candidates in two categories-- those possessing 45% marks or more in the aggregate and others with less than 45% marks. The classification, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is impermissible us it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. This argument has only to be noticed to be rejected. In our opinion, the Regulation is not arbitrary and it is open to the University for the purpose of maintaining its academic standards to prescribe any qualification for admission to its course which may be higher than the minimum prescribed. No meaningful argument, indeed, could he urged in this regard.
10. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
11. Petition dismissed.