Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
S.S.R.N. Sarma And Anr. vs Registrar (Administration), High ... on 16 June, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(4)ALT94
Author: V. Raja Gopal Reddy
Bench: V. Raja Gopal Reddy
JUDGMENT S. Parvatha Rao, J.
1. The short question raised by the two petitioners in this Writ Petition is whether the degree of Bachelor of General Laws ('BGL degree' for short) acquired by them in May, 1985 from the University of Mysore through Correspondence Course is a "Degree in Law" prescribed as a qualification by Rule 7 (5) (a) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service Rules, 1975 ('1975 Rules' for short) for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service ('the Service' for short).
2. Dealing with a similar question with reference to Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules ('JS Rules' for short) a Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment in D.A. Padmanabham v. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 21-3-1996 in Writ Petition No. 5608 of 1996 held that BGL degree was not a degree in Law as contemplated by that Rule. The petitioners state that when they appeared before the 'Promotion Committee' for consideration to the post of Assistant Registrar, the members of that Committee were under the impression that they did not possess the requisite qualification of degree in Law in view of the Judgment in D.A. Padmanabham's case1. When the present Writ Petition came up for admission before a Division Bench, in view of the submission of the learned 1. Judgment dated 21-3-1996 in Writ Petition No. 5608 of 1996. Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, that the question merited a deeper probe and an authoritative pronouncement, it was directed to be posted before a larger Bench and that is how it is before us now. We heard the learned Counsel on both sides and are disposing of the matter finally.
3. The facts first. The petitioners seek a declaration that "the degree of BGL is 'Law' for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post i.e., from Category-6 to Category-4 of Division-I of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Service" and that they are fully qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar. They state that they were appointed as Court Masters falling under Category-6 of Division-I of the Service and that they acquired the BGL degree from the Mysore University through Correspondence Course believing that to be a "Degree in Law of a University in India" satisfying the requirements of Rule 7 (5) (a) for their promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar falling under Category-4 of Division-I under Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. They state that persons holding the qualification of BGL degree of Mysore University and other Universities recognised by the University Grants Commission were treated earlier as satisfying the qualification of degree in law in Rule 7 (5) (a) of the 1975 Rules and that they were even allowed to apply for appointment to the post of District Munsifs after permission by the High Court and that they were also selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and joined as District Munsifs. This was on the basis of a clarification issued by the Registrar of the High Court to the effect that "the holders of degree of BGL are being treated on par with the Law degree holders and considered for appointment to Judicial Services provided the syllabus of BGL degree includes Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code" and that "the degree in BGL is also considered on the administrative side of the High Court". They state that the subject of Law of Crimes and Procedure was prescribed for BGL degree course by the University of Mysore, but Civil Procedure Code was not included in the curriculum. They state that they passed the examination of Civil Procedure Code, Parts 1 and 2 conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, which was considered sufficient. They contend on that basis that they are even qualified for appointment to the post of District Munsifs under the JS Rules.
4. The petitioners submit that a degree in Law prescribed by Rule 7(5)(a) does not necessarily mean a degree which enables the holder to practise the profession of law. They contend that prescription of degree in Law is only to see that the holders of the post of Assistant Registrar are acquainted with the various subjects of law which they have to deal with in discharge of their duties. The expression "Degree in Law" is not defined in the 1975 Rules. They state that B.L. and LL.B. degrees are conferred on completion of 3 years course in Law and that some Universities are also offering 2 years course in Law and awarding the degree of B.G.L. They state that Kakatiya University clarified the position in its letter dated 21-12-1992 addressed to the Secretary, A.P. State Council of Higher Education as follows:-
"(a) There are many Universities which are offering B.G.L. degree course in India. In the State of A.P., also the Andhra, Nagarjuna, Sri Venkateswara and Kakatiya Universities are offering the B.G.L. degree course.
(b) B.G.L. degree is an academic Law degree whereas LL.B, is a professional Law degree. Though B.G.L. degree holder is not permitted to practise law as an Advocate but for all other academic purposes, such as appointment and promotion, B.G.L. degree is considered as a Law Degree".
They also point out that the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, which was hitherto recruiting District Munsifs, treated persons possessing B.G.L. qualification and pass in the examination of Code of Civil Procedure, Parts 1 and 2 conducted by it as qualified for the post of District Munsif.
5. The clarification given by the Kakatiya University, relied upon by the petitioners, establishes that some of the Universities in the country are offering (i) LL.B/B.L. degrees after a three years course of study in Law after graduation; and (ii) B.G.L. degrees after a two years course of study in Law after graduation. Apart from these degrees offered to graduates, there are also B.L./LL.B., degrees offered by various Universities in the country after a five years course of study in Law after Intermediate. Thus, one important distinction between B.G.L., degree and B.L./LL.B., degree offered by the Universities is in the duration of the course of study - it is one year less in the case of B.G.L. Another important distinction pointed out is that a B.G.L., degree holder is not permitted to practise law as an Advocate. This is because under Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short), one of the conditions to be fulfilled for a person to be qualified to be admitted as an Advocate on a State roll is that he should have obtained a degree in law-
(i) before the 12th day of March, 1967 from any University in the Territory of India; or
(ii) before the 15th day of August, 1947, from any University in any area which was comprised before that date within India as defined by the Government of India Act, 1935; or
(iii) after the 12th day of March, 1967, save as provided in sub-clause (iiia), after undergoing a three year course of study in Law from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or (iiia) after undergoing a course of study in Law, the duration of which is not less than two academic years commencing from the academic year 1967-68 or any earlier academic year from any University in India which is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or
(iv) in any other case, from any University outside the territory of India, if the degree is recognised for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or"..........(the other alternatives are not relevant).
6. The Bar Council of India has framed Rules in Notification No. Advocate/ III, IV (71) (i)/86 dated 4-9-1986 under the heading "Part-IV - Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for admission as Advocate". Rule 2 of the Rules fixes the following conditions, among others, for recognition of a degree in Law obtained from any University in the territory of India for purposes for enrolment as Advocate:-
"(a) That at the time of joining the course of instruction in Law for a degree in Law, the person concerned has passed an examination in 10+2 course of schooling recognised by the educational authority of the Central or the State Governments or possesses such academic qualifications which are considered equivalent to 10+2 courses by the Bar Council of India;
(b) The Law degree has been obtained after undergoing a regular course of study in a duly recognised Law College under these rules for a minimum period of five years, out of which the first two years shall be devoted to study of pre-law courses as necessary qualification for admission to three-year course of study in Law to be commenced thereafter. The last six months of the three years of the Law course shall include a regular course of practical training;
(c) That the course of study in Law has been by regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures, tutorials, moot Courts and practical training given by a College affiliated to a University recognised by the Bar Council of India;
(d) That the Law degree has been obtained without undergoing any other course of instruction simultaneously during the period of five years of study in law".
Rule 3 of these Rules requires that the Law education shall only be through whole time Law Colleges or University Departments. Rule 4 provides that the present three-year Law course after graduation be continued upto 1986-87 and that from the session 1987-88 all Universities would be required to offer the five-year law course and that students admitted to the three-year course during 1986-87 would be eligible to be enrolled as Advocates. Subsequently, the time for change-over to three year law course has been extended and students admitted to three-year course subsequent to 1986-87 academic years have also been made eligible to be enrolled as Advocates. Rule 12 of these Rules prescribes various subjects and the courses of instruction. Though under Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act the expression 'Law Graduate' is defined as "a person who has obtained a Bachelor's Degree in Law from any University established by law in India", Section 24 makes it clear that every Law Graduate is not qualified to be admitted as an Advocate and that only those who obtained the bachelor's degree in Law satisfying requirements of that Section shall be qualified to be admitted as an Advocate.
7. The Rules framed by the Bar Council of India concerning Standards of Legal Education and Recognition of Degrees in Law for Admission as Advocates' were considered by the Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick (D.N.). The question before the Supreme Court in that case was whether a candidate who appeared for the LL.B (Professional) examination as a non-collegiate student without attending lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and obtained the degree in Law after passing that examination was qualified to be enrolled as an Advocate. As a fact, no non-collegiate degree-holder had ever been enrolled as an Advocate after 6-9-75, the date from which the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India came into force. The Supreme Court held that the candidates admittedly did not pursue any regular course of study at any College recognised by the University by attending the law classes, lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and, therefore, they did not comply with the requirements for enrolment as Advocates and that "unless the degree of law was secured consistently with the requirements of the provisions of the Act and the Rules it would not serve as a qualification for enrolment. The Supreme Court reiterated the view expressed by it in Baldev Raj Sharma v. Bar Council of India, that Rule 1 (1) (c) of Part-IV of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 clearly required that "the course of study in law should have been by regular attendance for the requisite number of lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and practical training" and that the rule envisaged that "for the entire period of the law course there must be a regular attendance of the student before he can satisfy the conditions necessary for enrolment as an Advocate" and that these Rules only amplified what was intended in Section 24 (1) (c) (iii) of the Act. Thus, the three-year course of study envisaged under the Rules and Section 24 of the Act required that the said course must be pursued by maintaining regular attendance. The facts in that case were that Baldev Raj Sharma, the Writ petitioner before the Supreme Court, did the two-year course of Bachelor of Laws (Academic) in Kurukshetra University as a private candidate and after completing that course he was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Laws (Academic) by the Kurukshetra University; subsequently he joined the LL.B. (Professional) course in the 3rd year in the Kanpur University as a regular student and obtained LL.B. (Professional) degree from the Kanpur University, which was recognised by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate. The Kanpur University conferred two distinct degrees; LL.B. (General) which was a two-year course; and LL.B. (Professional) which was a three-year course. A person who had been awarded the LL.B. (General) degree was eligible for admission to the LL.B (Professional) third year. Baldev Raj Sharma availed of that facility. He contended that there was no distinction in the Rules and Regulations of the Kanpur University whether LL.B. (General) should be pursued with regular attendance or as a non-collegiate student. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court holding that the entire three-year course of study for obtaining the LL.B. (Professional) degree should have been by regular attendance of lectures, tutorials and moot Courts and practical training. The rationale was spelt out by the Supreme Court as follows:-
"There is a substantial difference between a course of study pursued as a regular student and a course of study pursued as a private candidate. The policy underlying the relevant provisions of the Bar Council Rules indicates the great emphasis laid on regular attendance at the Law classes. The conditions are specifically spelt out when the Act is read along with the Rules. When so read, it is plain that a candidate desiring enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act must fulfil the conditions mentioned in Section24 (1) (c) (iii) or Section 24 (1) (c) (iiia) read with Rule 1(1)(c) of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975".
8. Thus, in these two decisions, the Supreme Court clarified the differences between degrees of Law (Professional degrees) to be acquired for enrolment as Advocates and other degrees of Law (Academic degrees). In the case of Professional degrees, the Bar Council of India may make rules in exercise of its powers under Clauses (af) and (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 49 of the Act prescribing the minimum qualifications required for admission to the law courses to be undergone and the standards of legal education for the law course to be observed by the Universities in India and inspection of the Universities for that purpose. This is a step towards improvement of standards of the legal profession.
9. A similar step has been taken in the case of recruitment to Judicial Service on the initiative of the Apex Court for improvement of standards. In All India judges' Assn. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that three years' minimum practice as a lawyer, in addition to the degree in Law, should be the minimum qualification for being eligible to the post of Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate First Class/Magistrate First Class/Munsiff Magistrate. The Supreme Court further held as follows:-
"Considering the fact that from the first day of assuming office, the Judge has to decide, among others, questions of life, liberty, property and reputation of the litigants, to induct graduates fresh from the Universities to occupy seats of such vital powers is neither prudent nor desirable. Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for the first-hand experience of the working of the Court-system and the administration of justice begotten through legal practice. The practice involves much more than mere advocacy. A lawyer has to interact with several components of the administration of justice. Unless the judicial officer is familiar with the working of the said components, his education and equipment as a Judge is likely to remain incomplete. The experience as a lawyer is, therefore, essential to enable the Judge to discharge his duties and functions efficiently and with confidence and circumspection......... In this connection, it may be pointed out that under Article 233 (2) of the Constitution, no person is eligible to be appointed as District Judge unless he has been an Advocate or a pleader for no less than seven years while Articles 217 (2) (b) and 124 (3) (b) require at least ten years' practice as an Advocate of a High Court for the appointment of a person to the posts of the Judge of the High Court and the Judge of the Supreme Court, respectively. We, therefore, direct that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as the judicial officer at the lowest rung".
This is for direct recruitment to the lowest rung of the Judicial Officers. In respect of the recruitment by transfer to the lowest rung of the Judicial Officers, the Supreme Court clarified the position with reference to the Gujarat Rules in All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India, 1995 (2) SCALE 374 as follows:-
"Insofar as the recruitment rules are concerned, the relevant rule is Rule 5 of the Gujarat Recruitment Service Rules, 1961. That rule provides the method of recruitment to class 2 of the judicial branch. According to that rule, besides the members of the Bar, members of the staff of the High Court as well as subordinate Courts, members of the staff working as Assistants in the legal section of the Legal Department, Sachivalaya, members of the staff of Office of the Government Pleader, High Court and City Civil Court, Ahmedabad are eligible for appointment provided they have obtained the LL.B. (Special) Degree or are qualified for enrollment as an Advocate and have served for a period of not less than 5 years including not less than 2 years after obtaining such Degree or qualifying for such enrollment and are certified to have sufficient knowledge of Gujarati and Hindi and are able to translate from Gujarati to English and English to Gujarati etc. Besides these requirements, these staff members are required to pass an examination called the Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates, First Class Recruitment Examination comprising two papers. Only those of the staff members who pass this rigorous test are entitled to be recruited to the lowest rung of the State Judiciary. The directions given by this Court in the judgment referred to herein before concerned the minimum practice requirement for entry into service from amongst the members of the Bar. The Court had not noticed the provisions made by the High Court in regard to the recruitment of staff members with sufficient experience. The experience of five years service is equated to the experience of three years at the bar. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in such cases the direction issued in regard to minimum three years practice at the Bar does not stricto senso apply.
We, therefore, clarify this position and hold that the staff members who are eligible under Rule 5 and who comply with the requirements of the Rule discussed above could be considered for appointment at the lowest rung in the subordinate judiciary. We would, however, make it clear that any dilution of this rule will render them ipso facto ineligible for appointment to the service of the lowest level of State Judicial Service".
In so holding, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the rule position obtaining under the Gujarat Recruitment Service Rules, 1961 that one of the eligibility requirements for members of the staff of the High Court as well as subordinate Courts etc., is that they should have obtained the LL.B. (Special) degree or should be qualified for enrolment as an Advocate and that they should have served for not less than five years including not less than two years after obtaining such degree and qualification for such enrolment; in addition, they should pass the recruitment examination. The Supreme Court has also pointed out that experience of five years service is equated to experience of three years at the Bar.
10. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association's case (5 supra) clearly supports the view of the Division Bench of this Court in D.A. Padmanabham's case (1 supra) questioned by the petitioners. In view of the specific observation of the Supreme Court that any dilution of the rule would make the candidates ineligible, the qualification of a degree in Law prescribed for recruitment by transfer to the post of District Munsif in Rule 12 of the JS Rules has to be interpretted to mean only a Professional Degree in Law required for enrolment as an Advocate and nothing less.
11. Rule 4 (2) of the JS Rules provides that appointment to the category of District Munsifs shall be by direct recruitment, transfer and by promotion: two out of every twenty vacancies shall be by transfer from full members or approved probationers in specified categories, which include Section Officers, Court Officers, Scrutiny Officers, Accounts Officers, Court Masters, Personal Assistants to Judges, Personal Assistants to Registrar and Additional Registrar, Special Assistants, Translators of the High Court, among others; and not more than seven out of every such vacancies shall be by promotion from the category of Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class. Rule 12 of the JS Rules prescribes the following qualifications for appointment by transfer and promotion of the District Munsifs:-
"By transfer:-(1) Must not have completed 45 years of age; and (2) (a) Must possess a degree in Law of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act, or an Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission, or any other equivalent qualification;
(b) Must have passed the examination in Law of Practice and Procedure of the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council or any examination equivalent thereto:
Provided that a person who possesses a degree in Law of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act or an Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission, the syllabus of which include 'Civil Procedure Code' and "Criminal Procedure Code' shall not be required to pass the examination in Law of Practice and Procedure of the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council.
By Promotion:- Must possess the qualification in item (2) prescribed for appointment by transfer".
The requirement of passing the examination in Law of Practice and Procedure of the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council or any examination equivalent thereto is significant. The question of passing such an examination would arise only if the candidate is qualified for enrolment as Advocate, which means now that he must be possessing professional degree in Law. The requirement of possessing a "Degree in Law of a University in India..." has to be understood in the context of the recent developments as regards the degree in Law required for those joining the profession of Law, that is to say, they should not merely possess a professional degree in Law but also acquire that degree after pursuing the course of study for the degree as clarified by the Supreme Court in the cases of Baldev Raj Sarma (3 supra) and Aparna Basu Mallick (2 supra).
12. In All India Judges' Association's case (4 supra), a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court has observed that "the recruitment of Law graduates as Judicial Officers without any training or background of lawyering has not proved to be a successful experiment", and that experience as a lawyer is essential for a judicial officer to discharge his duties and functions efficiently and with circumspection, and directed "that all States shall take immediate steps to prescribe three years' practice as a lawyer as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment as judicial officer at the lowest rung". That was on 24-8-1993. Later, in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (D.N.) a two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that requirement of three years' minimum practice must be held to have come into force from 24-8-1993. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the provisions in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules, 1991 relating to appointment to the posts of Munsif Magistrates by recruitment by transfer from amongst officers in Categories (i) to (viii): Category (i) included Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade-I and Assistant Public Prosecutors Grade-II; Categories (ii) to (viii) included Private Secretary to the Chief Justice and other officers etc., Section Officers, Court Officers, Full-time Lecturers of Government Law Colleges, Law Graduates working in the High Court, Subordinate Courts, Advocate General's Office and Law Department in the Government Secretariat not covered by Categories (i) to (vii), with not less than ten years of total service.....of which not less than two years of service should have been after the acquisition of the law qualification. The Supreme Court observed as follows:
"Under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 recruitment by transfer is contemplated bearing the first category of officers namely Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-I and Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II. Those officers belonging to Categories (ii)-(viii) do not have minimum practice of three years at the Bar. Whether Assistant Public Prosecutor Grades-I and II falling under Category (i) are eligible for recruitment to the lower rung in judicial service, in that, they have three years' practice at Bar, need not be decided in this review petition. That question is left over."
That was with reference to the qualification of three years' practice as lawyer for recruitment to judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy. Subsequently, another three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association's case (5 supra) (Judgment rendered on 17-2-1995) clarified that that qualification related to entry intojudicial service by direct recruitment from amongst members of the Bar and that for recruitment by transfer from those in specified categories experience of three years' at the Bar was made equivalent to experience of five years' in those categories. In that background, we are inclined to take the view that the essential qualification of possession of professional degree in Law and experience of five years' service for appointment by transfer as District Munsif must be held to have come into force from 17-2-1995 i.e., the date when the Supreme Court made this clear authoritatively for the first time. We consider that in all fairness a last one time opportunity should be given for appointment by transfer as District Munsifs under Rule 4 (2) of JS Rules to those possessing an academic degree in Law (like B.G.L.) and have passed the examination in Law of practice and procedure of the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council or any examination equivalent thereto and who have five years' minimum service as full members or approved probationers in the Categories specified in that Rule.
13. Then the question in the present case boils down to whether 'Degree in Law' prescribed in Rule 7 (5) (a) of the 1975 Rules for eligibility for promotion has to be construed as a professional degree in law and not as any degree in law including an academic degree in law. The expression 'Degree in Law' is not defined. Under the circumstances, its connotation has to be spelled out by having an overall look at the Rules with specific reference to the qualifications prescribed for appointment and promotion to the various categories of posts in the Service.
14. Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules deals with constitution of the Service. The posts in the Service are defined into three Divisions: Division-I consists of Gazetted posts, Division-II of Non-Gazetted posts, and Division-Ill of Miscellaneous posts. Six categories of posts are included in Division-I and five categories in Division-II. They are as follows:-
DIVISION-I (GAZETTED POSTS) Category -1: Registrar (Administration) Registrar (Management) Registrar (Judicial) Category - 2: Joint Registrars Category - 3: (a) Deputy Registrar
(b) Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Category - 4: (a) Assistant Registrars
(b) Special Officer.
Category - 5: Section Officers, Court Officers, Scrutiny Officers, Accounts Officer.
Category - 6: Court Masters, Personal Secretaries to Judges, Personal Secretaries to Registrars.
DIVISION-II (NON-GAZETTED)
Category-1: Translators and Deputy Section Officers.
Category-2: Overseer.
Category-3: Assistant Section Officers.
Category-4: (a) Assistants
(b) Readers and Examiners.
Category-5: (a) Typists; and
(b) Copyists.
As per Rule 4 (1), the appointing authority for all categories in Division-I is the Chief Justice and for all categories in Divisions-II and III is the Registrar (Administration). The method of appointment to the Service is given under Rule 5 and as regards the posts in Divisions-I and II, it is as follows:-
Category and Post. Method
(1) (2)
DIVISION-I
Category-1 (i) By promotion from Category-2, viz., Joint
Registrars. Registrar; or
(ii) By transfer from among the members
of the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial
Service on tenure basis for a fixed a term
or terms.....
(iii)By direct recruitment.
Category-2
Joint Registrar (i) By promotion from Category-3, Deputy
Registrars; or
(ii) By transfer from among the members of
the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial
Services, Grade-II, on tenure basis for a
fixed term or terms...
Category-3 (a)
(a) Deputy Registrar (i) By promotion from Category-4, Assistant
Registrars and Special Officer; or
(ii) By transfer from among the members of the
Category of Subordinate Judges of the
Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service on
tenure basis for a fixed term or terms........
(b) Principal Secretary (i) By transfer
to Chief Justice. (a) from among the members of the
Andhra Pradesh State Judicial
Service........
(b) from the post of Deputy Registrar;
or
(ii) By promotion from Category 4,5 or 6.
Category-4
(a) Assistant (i) By promotion from Category 5 or 6; or
Registrars (ii) By transfer from among the members of
the Category; of District Munsifs of the
Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service
on tenure basis for a fixed term or
terms.....
(iii) By direct recruitment.
Note:- Atleast three posts of Assistant Registrars shall always be held by the members in Categories 5 and 6:
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(b) Special Officer. (i) By promotion from Category 5 or 6; or
(ii) By transfer from among members of the
Andhra Pradesh State Judicial
Service......
Category-5
Section Officers, Court (i) By promotion from Category-1 of
Officers, Scrutiny Division-II: xxx xxx
Officers and Accounts (ii) By direct recruitment.
Officer.
Category-6
Court Masters, Personal (i) By promotion from any category in
Secretaries to Judges, Division-II, other than Category-2; or
Personal Secretaries to (ii) BY direct recruitment; or
Registrars. (iii) By transfer from any other service.
DIVISION-II
Category-1
Translators and Deputy (i) By promotion from Category-3; or
Section Officers. (ii) By direct recruitment.
Category-2 (i) By transfer from Category-1; or
Overseer. (ii) By promotion from Category-3; or
from Category-1 of Division-Ill; or
(iii) By direct recruitment; or
(iv) By transfer from any other service.
Category-3
Asst.Section Officers. (i) By direct recruitment;
(ii) By promotion from Categories 4 and 5....
Category-4
(a) Assistants; (i) By direct recruitment; or
(b) Readers and (ii) By promotion from Category 2 and 3 of
Examiners. Division-III; or
(iii) By transfer from any other service.
Category-5
(a) Typists. (i) By direct recruitment; or
(b) Copyists. (ii) By promotion from Category 2 or 3 of
Division-III; or
(iii) By transfer from any other service.
Rule 7 deals with qualifications and to the extent relevant is as follows:-
"Rule 7 (1) ..... .....
7(2) No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service by direct recruitment:
(a) In Category-1 of Division-I unless he is actually practising as an Advocate for a period of not less than 10 years;
(b) In Category-4 (a) of Division-I unless he is actually practising as an Advocate for a period of not less than 5 years;
(c) In Category-5 of Division-I or Category-1 of Division-II unless he is actually practising as an Advocate for a period of not less than 3 years;
(d) In Category-6 of, Division-I unless he holds a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or Law of a University in India established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, Provincial Act or a State Act or from any Institution recognised by the University Grants Commission or any other degree equivalent to such qualification.
7(3). No person shall be eligible for appointment to the Service by direct recruitment or by transfer in Division-II:
(a) In Category-3 unless he holds a degree in Law and also a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce......... or any other degree equivalent to such qualification;
(b) In Category-4 unless he holds a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or Law of a University in India..........or any other degree equivalent to such qualification;
(c) xxxx xxxxx 7(4). xxxxx xxx xxxx 7(5) (a) No person shall be eligibleior promotion to Category-4 in Division-I unless he holds a degree in Law of a University in India....
(b) No person shall be eligible for promotion to Categories 1 or 3 of Division-II unless he holds a Degree in Arts, Science, Commerce or Law of a University in India.....
Provided that Typists or Copyists who do not possess the Degree qualification and who were promoted to Category-3 of Division-II on or after 20th July 1977 shall acquire the said qualification on or before 1st August, 1980".
An examination of these Rules reveals that direct recruitment to the posts in Category-1 of Division-I, Category-4 (a) of Division-I and Category-5 of Division-I, and Category-1 of Division-II is from actually practising Advocates with a standing of ten years, five years and three years respectively. The qualification for direct recruitment to the posts in Category-6 of Division-I and Category-4 of Division-II is a degree in Arts, Science or Commerce or Law. So also, for promotion to Categories 1 to 3 of Division-II, the qualification is a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or Law. Thus, for these posts it is not essential that a candidate should have a degree in Law; it is sufficient if he possesses a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce. In the case of Category-3 of Division-II, the qualification is a degree in Law and also any degree in Arts or Science or Commerce, which indicates that degree in Law should be in addition to a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce. A slight departure is made in the case of direct recruitment to the posts in Category-3 of Division-II by requiring a degree in Law and also a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce under Rule 7 (3) (a); but this has to be looked at keeping in view the fact that for promotion to these posts a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce or Law is sufficient as per Rule 7 (5) (b). This shows that a degree in Law is made equivalent to a degree in Arts or Science or Commerce, which are all academic degrees. Therefore, from the context in which 'Degree in Law' occurs in all these rules, it follows that an academic degree in Law is sufficient and that an exclusive professional degree in Law is not intended.
15. No different intention can be perceived in the case of 'Degree in Law' occurring in Rule 7 (5) (a). That Rule prescribes a degree in Law for promotion to Category-4 in Division-I. The feeder posts in respect of this Category are Categories 5 and 6 of Division-I. When the qualification for the posts in Categories 5 and 6 of Division-I is only an academic degree in Law, it is not possible to infer that a professional degree in Law is intended for promotion from those posts in (sic. to) Category-4 in Division-I. There is nothing in Rule 7 (5) (a) to suggest the contrary. In the absence of anything compelling and necessitating such an inference, it would be unreasonable to restrict the expression 'Degree in Law' in that Rule to mean only a professional degree in Law because that would be restricting the promotional avenues of those in Categories 5 and 6 of Division-I.
16. The requirement of a professional degree in Law for Advocates and Judicial Officers is on the footing that they should be properly equipped and trained for the performance of their onerous functions. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kanilabai Abdul Kadar v. Shankarlal Gulabchand, the Bench and the Bar from a noble and dynamic partnership geared to the great social goal of administration of justice and every Advocate is an Officer of the Court and aids in the cause of justice. The Act has been surveyed by the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v. Bar Council of India, and Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, . In the earlier case the Supreme Court observed that before independence there were Mukhtars and Vakils who were permitted to practise law in moffusil Courts even though not all of them were Law graduates and that they were allowed to wither away and their place was taken by Pleaders who were, after securing a degree in Law, permitted to practise at the district level, whereas those enrolled as Advocates could practise in any Court. The Act was enacted creating Bar Councils "to protect the litigating public by ensuring that high and noble traditions are maintained so that the purity and dignity of the profession are not jeopardized" and to ensure that "only profession-oriented and service-oriented people join the Bar and those not so oriented are kept out". In Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani's case the Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"Thus even at pre-entry stage of an Advocate to the profession his equipments as a student of Law and the requirement of basic legal education with which he should be armed before he can aspire to be enrolled as an Advocate are also looked after by the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council concerned which works under the general supervision and control of the apex body, namely, the Bar Council of India. Thus the Bar Council of India is cast with the duty to take all such steps as it considers necessary to filter students at the entry stage to the Law course e.g., by providing an entrance test, as well as at the entry point to the profession e.g., by providing an examination or a training course before enrolment as an Advocate".
This is because "an Advocate is an integral part for the administration of justice". Professional excellence and integrity has to be nurtured and sustained because apart from the crucial part played by the profession of law in the judicial system, it is the source for direct recruitment to the lowest rung of the judicial officers as well as to the highest.
17. Judiciary plays a pivotal role in constitutional governance and maintenance of the rule of law. The Courts at the lower level supplement Constitutional Courts and work at the cutting edge of the justice delivery system. "The Judges must be of the stuff that goes to make a good judiciary, legal knowledge necessary to apply the law with clarity and dispatch, ability to discover the fact with open mind, a firm but understanding heart, integrity with conscience and a public and private deportment that is above reproach". The recent effort has been to achieve and maintain these highest standards and the Apex Court has drawn a blue print for achieving this in the All India Judge's Association cases. District Munsifs are the feeder posts for the entire cadre of Subordinate Judges in the State and they in turn form the source for appointment by transfer/promotion to the posts of District and Sessions Judges. The direct recruit District Munsifs and those appointed by transfer form one cadre and they interact with the Advocates in the Courts. It is proper, therefore, that the District Munsifs appointed by transfer should also possess the qualifying professional degree in Law to be on par with their colleagues appointed from the Bar and the Advocates who appear before them. That is why the Supreme Court clarified in All India Judges' Association's case5 that those appointed by transfer as District Munsifs also should possess professional degree in Law - in that case LL.B. (Special) degree.
18. But such considerations do not apply in the case of Assistant Registrars (Category 4 (a) in Division-I) working in the cloistered confines of the High Court. It is also to be noticed that the provision under consideration deals only with promotion and not first appointment by direct recruitment. Many of the persons coming up for consideration for promotion under this provision must have been inducted in the Service nearly a decade back and must have acquired degrees in Law by Correspondence Course believing that to be adequate qualification at a time when such degrees were being treated as sufficient qualification for the purpose of Rule 7 (5) (a). The petitioners themselves acquired BGL degree more than a decade ago in May, 1985. Now, it is also not possible for them to acquire a professional degree in Law intended only for those wanting to enter the profession of Law by attending regular lectures, tutorials and moot Courts. In that back-ground and in the absence of Rule 7 (5) (a) spelling out unambiguously that a professional degree in Law is intended, there is no good reason to restrict the expression 'Degree in Law' to mean only a professional Degree in Law. 19. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.