TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 5 was transferred as the Principal of Nagrik Degree College and he challenged the said order of transfer on the ground that he was competent to hold the post of Principal of the Law College and the reason for his transfer was unsustainable and that a Principal could not be transferred to another College as sought to be done. The bone of contention in the Writ Petitions was whether a person who did not possess a degree or a postgraduate degree in law and was not qualified to practise law, could be appointed as the Principal of a Law College and whether it was not essential to have a degree in law before one could be appointed as Principal of a Law College. The Bar Council of India was not a party to the Writ Petitions. The High Court took the view that going by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, the University Act ), such an appointment could be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 or in the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. The High Court proceeded on the basis that there was a conflict between the two enactments, namely, the University Act and the Advocates Act and in terms of Article 254(2) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaching degree class . With effect from 13.1.1995, the said Statute was amended and clause (b) thereafter read, a doctorate degree, with 7 years' experience of teaching degree class . In other words, the requirement that the appointee must have a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the College was done away with. Until 13.1.1995, a person could be appointed Principal of a Law College only if he possessed a doctorate degree in law or in one of the branches of law taught in that College. But after 13.1.1995, on an ordinary literal interpretation of the amended clause, a person possessing a doctorate degree in a subject wholly unrelated to law could also be appointed the Principal of a Law College. Respondent No. 5 herein, who was one among the candidates selected and included in the panel and who was appointed as Principal of the Dayanand Law College had a doctorate in Philosophy and had no degree or qualification in law. 3. The management initially accepted the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal. It is said that he was teaching Ethics and Ancient Law in the College. As noticed earlier, on an inspection made by the Bar Council of India, it came out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... education as such and that its role was confined to controlling the profession of Advocates and the commencement of the profession, that is, enrolment as an Advocate and hence the Bar Council of India could not make any prescription regarding legal education or about those who are to teach law, or who are to be the Principal of a College of Law. It also proceeded on the basis that the Advocates Act is a legislation under Entry 25 or 26 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and since the State law is under Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State law would prevail in the context of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. The Bar Council of India feels aggrieved by these findings of the High Court and is before this Court with these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the Bar Council of India submitted that the High Court was first of all in error in holding that the legislative power for enacting the Advocates Act is traceable to Entry 26 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench in O.N. Mohindroo vs. The Bar Council of Delhi Ors. [(1968) 2 S.C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, to the extent it is relevant here, reads: 24. Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, a person shall be qualified to be admitted as an advocate on a State roll, if he fulfills the following conditions, namely:- (a) . (b) (c) he has 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 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 years course of study in law from any University in India which is recognized 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 recognized for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or (iv) in any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the sense in which the same is entrusted to a University, still, the Bar Council of India retains adequate power to control the course of studies in law, the power of inspection, the power of recognition of degrees and the power to deny enrolment to law degree holders, unless the University from which they pass out is recognized by the Bar Council of India. 10. The first task of a court confronted with a set of parallel provisions relating to the appointment of a principal of a law college like the one in the amended provision of the Statute under the University Act and the Rules made by the Bar Council of India which could ultimately refuse to admit a graduate of law coming out of the University to enrolment as an advocate, which alone would entitle him to practice, is to see whether the provisions could not be reconciled or harmoniously construed so as to achieve the object of both the enactments. Prior to 13.1.1995, there was no conflict between Statute 11.14 and Rule 12 of the Rules of the Bar Council. In 1995, in the University Statutes, the requirement of the Principal having to be the holder of a doctorate in one of the subjects taught in the College, was done away ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le appointing him, it must be borne in mind that he should fulfill the requirements of the Rules of the Bar Council of India framed under the Advocates Act and it be ensured that he holds a Doctorate in any one of the branches of law taught in the law college. We do not see anything in the University Act or the Statutes framed thereunder, which stands in the way of the adopting of such a course. Therefore, when a request is made for selection of a Principal of a law college, the University and the Selection Committee has to ensure that applications are invited from those who are qualified to be principals of a law college in terms of the Rules of the Bar Council and from the list prepared, a person possessing the requisite qualification, is nominated and appointed as the Principal of a law college. 12. It is clear from the decision of the Constitution Bench in O.N. Mohindroo vs. The Bar Council of Delhi Ors. (supra) that in pith and substance, the Advocates Act falls under Entries 77 and 78 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. That apart, it is not necessary to postulate a conflict of legislation in this case as we have indicated earlier. It is true that under the University Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extend to the statute framed under it and that too to an amendment made subsequent to the assent are questions that do not call for an answer in this case in the light of the view we have adopted. 13. According to us therefore, notwithstanding the procedure to be followed under the University Act and Statute 11.14 as amended, it is necessary for the Recommending Authority and the State Government when concerned with the appointment of a Principal of a Law College, also to adhere to the requirements of the Advocates Act and the rules of the Bar Council of India. This would ensure a harmonious working of the Universities and the Bar Council of India in respect of legal education and the avoidance of any problems for the students coming out of the Institution wanting to pursue the legal profession. We therefore hold that the State Government and the Recommending Authority were not justified in recommending and appointing respondent No. 5 as the Principal of the Dayanand Law College. 14. It is somewhat difficult to appreciate why clause (b) of Statute 11.14 (ii) was amended by dropping the requirement that the Principal should hold a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
