Karnataka High Court
E Gobinath vs The Bar Council Of India on 2 April, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
WP 35577/2011
1
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.No.35577/2011 (EDN)
BETWEEN
E GOBINATH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/o M. ELLUMALLAI
R/A N.18, MUNIREDDY LAYOUT
MADIVALA
BANGALORE-560068 ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. S NAGARAJU, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
No.21, ROUSE AVENUE
INSTITUTIONAL
AREA, NEW DELHI-110002
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-20
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
BANGALORE-560001
4. SARVODAYA LAW COLLEGE
NO 867, VASANTHA COMPLEX
DR.MODI HOSPITAL ROAD
WP 35577/2011
2
WEST OF CHORD ROAD
BANGALORE-86 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. BASAVARAJ KAREDDY FOR R2,
Sri. R. OMKUMAR AGA FOR R3,
Smt. M.P. GEETHA DEVI, ADV., FOR R1)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROSECUTE HIS
STUDIES BY WAY OF 3 YEARS LLB COURSE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents to permit him to prosecute his studies in the Three years Law Course.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had approached respondent No.4-Sarvodaya Law College for admission to Three years LL.B. Course, but the college did not consider the request of the petitioner for admission on the ground that the percentage of marks obtained by the petitioner in the qualifying degree examination was less than 45%. Hence, aggrieved by this action, the present writ petition is filed WP 35577/2011 3 contending that denial of admission to the petitioner by respondent No.4 is illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary.
3. The main contention urged by Mr. Nagaraj, learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that as per the notification dated 16.06.2008 issued by the Bangalore University, candidates belonging to SC/ST category who have obtained marks in aggregate between 35% and 40% in their qualifying examination are held eligible to take an entrance test conduced by the College. Similarly, candidates belonging to other categories other than SC/ST who have obtained marks in aggregate between 40% and 45% in their qualifying examination are held eligible to take the entrance test conduced by the College. Based on the entrance test results, they are given admission. However, after the establishment of respondent No.2-Karnataka State Law University, no such provision is made to take such entrance examination. As a result, candidates securing less than 40 or 45% marks, as the case may be, in the qualifying examination are held ineligible to secure admission to the law course. This, according to the petitioner, is totally arbitrary and WP 35577/2011 4 unreasonable. It is his further submission that in the case of Mahathma Gandhi University, candidates who had secured 35% marks in the qualifying examination have been admitted for law course.
4. Smt. Geetha Devi, learned Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India invites the attention of the Court to Part-IV of the Bar Council of India Rules introduced with effect from 14.09.2008, particularly to Rule 7 therein pertaining to 'prescription of minimum marks in the qualifying examination for admission to the law course', to contend that minimum percentage of marks prescribed as per the Rules for admission to law course is 40% in case of students belonging to SC/ST and 45% in case of students belonging to other category. It is her submission that as the petitioner-student does not have the minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying B.Com Degree examination, he is not eligible for admission to the law course.
5. Mr. Basavaraj Kareddy appearing for respondent No.2- University submits that minimum marks in the qualifying examination as prescribed by the Bar Council of India is WP 35577/2011 5 being followed by the University and as the petitioner is not possessing the said minimum eligibility, he is not entitled for admission to the law course.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for both parties, the question that falls for consideration is, "whether the petitioner is eligible for admission to the law course as per the prevailing rules?"
7. Rule 7 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which is relevant for this purpose can be usefully extracted as under:
"7. Minimum marks in qualifying examination for admission.- Bar Council of India may from time to time, stipulate the minimum percentage of marks not below 45% of the total marks in case of general category applicants and 40% of the total marks in case of SC and ST applicants, to be obtained for the qualifying examination, such as +2 examination in case of Integrated Five Years' course or Degree course in any discipline for Three Years' LL.B. course, for the purpose of applying for and getting admitted into a Law Degree Program of any recognized University in either of the streams:
Provided that such a minimum qualifying marks shall not automatically entitle a person to get WP 35577/2011 6 admission into an institution but only shall entitle the person concerned to fulfil other institutional criteria notified by the institution concerned or by the government concerned from time to time to apply for admission."
8. It is clear from this rule that the minimum percentage of marks to be fixed for admission for law courses cannot be less than 40 and 45 as the case may be. The rule stipulates that the Bar Council of India, may from time to time stipulate the minimum percentage of marks not below 45% of the total marks in case of general category applicants and 40% of the total marks in case of SC & ST applicants, to be obtained in the qualifying examination such as +2 examination in case of Integrated Five Years' course or three year Degree Course in any discipline for Three Years' LL.B. course. It is thus clear that the requirement of obtaining minimum percentage of marks at 45% of the total marks in the case of general category in the qualifying degree examination is a mandatory requirement. In addition to this minimum requirement there could be other institutional requirements. But, such institutional requirements cannot have the effect of relaxing the minimum eligibility percentage prescribed. WP 35577/2011 7
9. In the instant case, petitioner does not claim that he belongs to the reserved category viz., SC/ST. Therefore, he has to secure 45% of marks in the degree course in order to qualify for getting admitted to the Three years' law course. Though petitioner has asserted in the petition that he has secured more than 45% marks in the degree course and is therefore eligible to have admission in the respondent No.4- College, the marks card produced and the total percentage of marks obtained by him, as fairly submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not make him eligible. The calculation of percentage of marks made would only come to 41.4%. Therefore, petitioner-student is well below the required percentage of marks to be obtained for admission to the law course.
10. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this prescription is arbitrary and unconstitutional is beyond the scope of this writ petition as the petitioner has not challenged the vires of the rules. Though petitioner has made an attempt to urge in the grounds of the Writ Petition that in Mahathma Gandhi University permission has been WP 35577/2011 8 granted to candidates to take admission although they had only 35% marks, this vague statement is not supported by any details such as, the college where such admission is made, the names of the candidates and the year of admission. In the absence of such details, it is not necessary for this Court to consider the argument advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner that there is discriminatory treatment.
11. In so far as the contention raised based on the notification dated 16.06.2008 issued by the Bangalore University providing for entrance test to be conducted by the colleges for such of the candidates who had failed to obtain the qualifying percentage of marks (40% or 45% as the case may be), it has to be stated that when the Bar Council of India which is the competent authority to lay down the standards of legal education including even the minimum eligibility criteria for seeking admission to the law course, has framed rules prescribing the minimum marks in the qualifying examination for admission to the law course, the universities which are conferring degrees in law based on WP 35577/2011 9 these standards and eligibility criteria are required to adhere to the said standards. In fact, Part-IV of the Rules which is introduced with effect from 14.09.2008 spells out that the rules on standards of legal education and recognition of degrees in law for the purpose of enrollment as advocate and inspection of universities for recognizing its degree in law have been made by the Bar Council of India in consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils.
12. Even if it is assumed that the Bangalore University had issued such a notification on 16.06.2008 providing for entrance test, in the wake of the present rule enacted in Rule 7 which has come into effect from 14.09.2008, such entrance test to enable the ineligible candidates to get themselves admitted for the law course is not permissible. As the petitioner is seeking admission for the law course for the academic year 2011-12 and as Rule 7 of the Rules prescribing eligibility condition has come into force from 14.09.2008, no exception can be found in the insistence by respondent No.2-University that the petitioner has to WP 35577/2011 10 conform to the minimum eligibility requirement provided under the Rules.
13. It has to be stated here that in the matter of fixing minimum standards and eligibility criteria for admission to professional courses, it is for the expert bodies to deliberate on the matter and take appropriate decision. When such a decision is taken and the Rules are framed that too in consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils, it is not for this Court to interfere with such standards that are laid down in the form of fixation of minimum qualifying marks for admission. Therefore, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rules framed are arbitrary and unconstitutional cannot be entertained.
14. Hence, this writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK