Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 344 (PAT)

Md. Mahfoozur Rahman v. Bar Council Of India

2011-03-07

NAVIN SINHA

body2011
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council. 2. The petitioner claims to be possessing the degree of "Adeeb-e-Kamil" conducted by the Jamia Urdu at Aligarh. It is submitted that this course has recognition from the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya as a B.A. course. The Central Government recognized it to be of B.A. standard for purposes of employment under it. The impugned order dated 19.5.2010, that the course pursued by the petitioner was not recognized by the Bar Council of India as equivalent to Graduation was therefore wrong. Notwithstanding the same, one Md. Nazamuddin Ansari possessing the same degree as the petitioner has been enrolled to practice as an advocate bearing registration No. 01185 of 1990. 3. Counsel for the Bihar State Bar Council submits that unless the qualification claimed by the petitioner is recognized by the Bar Council of India as equivalent to Graduation, the question of his enrolment by the State Bar Council does not arise. 4. The responsibility for maintenance of standard of legal education primarily rests with the Bar Council of India. If the Bar Council of India does not consider the qualification of the petitioner as equivalent to Graduation and is therefore not satisfied that he shall be an asset to the Bar on the qualification that he holds, the Court finds it difficult to sit over the decision of the Bar Council of India as an appellate authority to decide issues of equivalence of educational qualification. 5. The law with regard to issue of academic equivalence is best left to experts and is not the domain of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In Guru Nanak Dev University V/s. Sanjay Kumar Katwal,(2009) 1 SCC 610, at page 616, it has been held as follows:- "15. The first respondent has passed his MA (OUS) from Annamalai University through distance education. Equivalence is a technical academic matter. It cannot be implied or assumed. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Any decision of the academic body of the university relating to equivalence should be by a specific order or resolution, duly published. The first respondent has not been able to produce any document to show that the appellant University has recognised MA (English) (OUS) of Annamalai University through distance education as equivalent to MA of appellant University. Thus, it has to be held that the first respondent does not fulfil the eligibility criterion of the appellant University for admission to the three year law course." 7. The Court therefore finds it difficult to interfere with the impugned order dated 19.5.2010. 8. It does not appear from the pleadings that the issue of enrollment of Md. Nazamuddin Ansari with similar qualification was brought to the attention of the Bar Council. If so advised, the petitioner may represent before the Bar Council of India inviting their attention to the aforesaid issue when the Bar Council of India is expected to dispose off the same by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of such representation. 9. The writ application stands disposed.