BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA versus BOARD OF MANG. DAYANAND COLLEGE OF LAW AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 756 · Decided: 28-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 
v. 
BOARD OF MANG. DAY ANAND COLLEGE OF LAW AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 2006 
B 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Principal of Law College-Selection and appointment of-Requirement 
C of qualification in /aw-Held, the recommending authority under .the 
Universities Act and the State Government should, while selecting and 
appointing Principal of Law College, also adhere to the requirements of the 
Advocates Act and the Rules framed thereunder by the Bar Council of India-
Bar Council of India should also consider justification of watering down 
D qualification of Doctorate or Post-Graduation in law-Bar Council of India-
Role of in legal education-Discussed-UP. Universities Act, 197 3-Kanpur 
University Statutes-Statute 11.14-Advocates Act, 1961-Bar Council of 
India Rules, 1955-r. 12. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Rule of harmonious construction-
E Appointment of Principal of Law College-Qualification-Held, first task of 
a Court confronted with a set of parallel provisions relating to appointment 
of Principal of a Law College is to see whether provisions could be reconciled 
or harmoniously construed so as to achieve object of both the enactments-
There is nothing in Universities Act or the Statutes whi~h stands in the way 
of recommending authority to adhere to requirements of Advocates Act or 
F Rules of Bar Council of India-Doctrine of Pith and Substance~onstitution 
of India, 1950-Seventh Schedule-List I, Entries 77 and 78-U.P. State 
Universities Act, 1973-Kanpur University Statute-I 1.14-Advocates Act, 
1961-Bar Council of India Rules, 1955-r.12. 
G 
Respondent no. 1, who had a degree of Doctorate in Philosophy, was 
appointed as Principal of respondent no. I-Law College under the provisions 
of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973. He was said to have been teaching ethics 
and ancient law in the College. On an inspection, the Bar Council of India 
found that he did not possess a qualification in law and, therefore, withdrew 
its recognition to the College. Thereupon the Management of the College filed 
II 
756 
::: 
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA'" BOARD OF MANG. DAYANANDCOLLEGEOF LAW 
757 
a writ petition before the High Court questioning the validity of appointment A 
of respondent no. 5. Meanwhile on his transfer as Principal to another Degree 
College, he also filed a writ petition challenging his order of transfer. The 
High Court held that in view of the provisions of the U.P. Universities Act, 
appointment of respondent no. 5 was entitled to be upheld notwithstanding 
anything contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Rules framed thereunder 
by the Bar Council of India. Since the Bar Council of India was not a party in B 
the said two writ petitions, it filed the present appeals seeking leave of the 
Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The State Government and the recommending authority were C 
not justified in recommending and appointing respondent No. 5 as the 
Principal of respondent no. I-Law College. Consistent with the Advocates Act 
and the rules of the Bar Council of India, respondent No. 5 could not have 
been appointed as the Principal of a Law College. 1768-C; 769-AI 
1.2. Notwithstanding the procedure to be followed under the U.P. 
Universities Act, 1973 and Statute 11.14 of the Kanpur University Statutes, 
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 
D 
of the Bar Council oflndia. This would ensure a harmonious working of the E 
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. (768-B-C] 
O.N. Mohindroo v. The Bar Council of Delhi & Ors., (1968) 2 S.C.R. 
709; The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. The State ofU.P. & Anr., (1973) 2 F 
S.C.R. 1073 and Ujagar Prints & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1989] 3 
S.C.C. 488, referred to. 
2.1. The first task of a court confronted with a set of parallel provisions 
relating to appointment of a principal of a law college like the one in the G 
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 entitl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.