ORDER 15.2.2011 — Heard Mr. Dhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.R. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. M. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2.The petitioner who is a Law Graduate from Balagangadhar Tilak Law College, Sonepur, is before this Court seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by the Orissa State Bar Council (Annexure-8) rejecting his representation for enrolling him as an advocate in its rolls after referring to the resolution No.79 of 2009 of the Bar Council of India wherein it has been stated that the degree of B.A. obtained by the petitioner from Indira Gandhi National Open University which is a University established under the Indira Gandhi National Open University Act,1985 (hereinafter called as the IGNOU Act which is a Central Act) cannot be treated at par with the regular degrees obtained from a recognized university so as to entitle him to get admission into the LL.B. course and subsequently to obtain a law degree for the purpose of enrolment urging various facts and legal contentions. 3.The brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions. It is stated that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Phulbani in Kandhamal district. He obtained his basic degree from IGNOU in the year 2005. He has also produced the degree certificate along with the statement of marks dated 8.4.2005. On the basis of the said Bachelor Degree he was admitted to the Balagangadhar Tilak Law College in the year 2005 into the Three year LL.B. Course. He has passed out from the Sambalpur University. The said degree was obtained prior to the resolution No.79 of 2009 passed by opposite party no.1. After obtaining the degree from the said university, he submitted an application in terms of the provisions of Section 24 read with rules framed by the Bar Council of India seeking for his enrolment as advocate under the provisions of the Advocates Act as he has acquired the eligibility as provided in the Statute and the Rules. The said application has been rejected by the Enrolment Committee placing reliance on the resolution of the Bar Council of India referred to supra which is impugned in this writ petition urging that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The said application has been rejected by the Enrolment Committee placing reliance on the resolution of the Bar Council of India referred to supra which is impugned in this writ petition urging that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order Annexure-8 is liable to be quashed by issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus to the State Bar Council to enrol him on its rolls as an advocate to enable him to practice as an advocate which is a fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Renuka v. State, 2002 (II) OLR 279 in support of his claim. 4.Mr. Mishra, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.1 sought to justify the impugned instruction issued to the petitioner placing strong reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Annamalai University represented by the Registrar v. Secretary to Government, Information and Tourism Department and others, (2009) 4 SCC 590 wherein the apex Court has examined the provisions of both the UGC Act, 1956 and IGNOU Act, 1985. Both the enactments were enacted by the Parliament in exercise of their legislative power. Whereas UGC Act was enacted in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII, The IGNOU Act was enacted by the Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII. The apex Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the said Act and held that even though the IGNOU Act is a later Act, they do not operate in the same field; the object of IGNOU Act is totally different from the object and intendment of the UGC Act, the provisions of the said Act are still applicable to the IGNOU for the reason that IGNOU has not made any regulation, it has not made any ordinance. It is guided by the regulations framed by the UGC. It is further submitted that relaxation cannot be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment of a degree. Learned counsel submits that the degree obtained by the petitioner from the IGNOU is not legal and valid as it has not followed the regulation is an undisputed fact. It is guided by the regulations framed by the UGC. It is further submitted that relaxation cannot be granted in regard to the basic things necessary for conferment of a degree. Learned counsel submits that the degree obtained by the petitioner from the IGNOU is not legal and valid as it has not followed the regulation is an undisputed fact. Therefore, the resolution passed by the Bar Council is perfectly legal and valid. Though on the basis of the basic degree obtained from IGNOU the petitioner got admitted to LL.B. course and obtained the degree from a College affiliated to the Sambalpur University set up under the State Universities Act, the same is invalid in the eye of law. Therefore, the resolution passed by opposite party no.1 is required to be quashed. Section 7 of the Advocates Act prescribes the functions of the Bar Council of India to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Council to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf and also to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Council. That must be read along with the Section 24. Though the petitioner has got a Law Degree which is the pre-requisite qualification for being enrolled as an advocate, the basic degree which was obtained from a college not following the regulations under the UGC Act is not a valid degree to get admission into the Law College. Even though on the basis of such degree admission was obtained, course completed and law degree obtained, the basic degree is not legal. Therefore, the provisional degree obtained from a recognized affiliated College is not a valid LL.B. Degree and therefore, the decision of opposite party no.2 is perfectly legal and valid. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by two High Courts, namely, Madras High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the following decisions, G. Vikraman v. Government of Tamil Nadu W.P. 26257/2009) and B. Malasuryan v. Bar Council of India respectively disposed of on 16.4.2010. The aforesaid decisions are aptly applicable in support of the decision taken by opposite party no.2. The aforesaid decisions are aptly applicable in support of the decision taken by opposite party no.2. Further he submits that the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court referred to supra by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application as the said decision was prior to the resolution No.79 of 2009 passed by opposite party no.1 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Annammalai University (supra) wherein the apex Court has held that the question of repugnancy between them could not arise and provisions of UGC Act would prevail over those of the IGNOU Act irrespective of the fact that IGNOU Act was a later enactment. Moreover, non obstante clause in Section 5(2) of the IGNOU Act, 1985 would not lead to an inference that the same is contrary as both the Acts operate in different fields. It has been further held that the regulations framed by UGC to determine standards of education became part of the UGC Act and the same are applicable to both open universities as well as conventional formal universities. In that respect the alternative system envisaged under IGNOU Act was not in substitution of the formal system. The distinction lay rather in the mode and manner of imparting education. Therefore, the basic degree obtained by the petitioner is invalid and hence the degree obtained from IGNOU by him is also not legal and valid. 5.With reference to the above said rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, the following issues would arise for consideration (a) whether the impugned resolution No.79 of 2009 is prospective in nature? (2) whether the degree obtained on the basis of the basic degree under the IGNOU in the college recognized and affiliated to Sambalpur University is a valid degree for enrolment as provided in Section 24? (3) What order ? 6.The aforesaid issues are inter-related and are required to be answered in favour of the petitioner together for the following reasons. 7.As could be seen from Section 7 of the Advocates Act, statutory powers are conferred upon opposite party no.1 as regards its functions, namely, to promote legal education and to recognize universities and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India. 7.As could be seen from Section 7 of the Advocates Act, statutory powers are conferred upon opposite party no.1 as regards its functions, namely, to promote legal education and to recognize universities and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India. The relevant clauses read thus: “(1) The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be- (g) to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils; (h) to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils; (i) to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities or cause the State Bar Councils to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with such directions as it may give in this behalf”. 8.It is not in dispute that the petitioner has obtained the basic degree through IGNOU which is established under the India Gandhi National Open University Act, 1985. It is an undisputed fact that regulations are framed by the University Grants Commission under the UGC Act are applicable to open universities as well as conventional universities as held by the Supreme Court in Annamalai University case (supra) and are mandatorily required to be strictly adhered to by all the Universities. On the basis of the decree granted by the IGNOU the petitioner has got admission into the Law College in question which is recognized by the Sambalpur University which has come into existence under the State Universities Act. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner has completed the LL.B. course and obtained the degree in the year 2008, which is the basis on which application is filed before opposite party no.2 seeking for his enrolment as an advocate in its rolls. It is relevant to peruse Section 24 of the Advocates Act for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties. Section 24 of the Act reads as under: “Section 24(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) (i)....... (ii)........ Section 24 of the Act reads as under: “Section 24(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) (i)....... (ii)........ (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 a University of India which is recognized for 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 recognized for the purposes of this Act by the Bar Council of India; or (e) he fulfills such other conditions as may be specified in the rules made by the State Bar Council under this Chapter.” 9.The aforesaid relevant provisions of the Advocates Act facts and rival legal contentions are examined to find out whether the resolution passed by the Bar Council of India can be given effect to in respect of candidates who have passed out the LL.B. course prior to the resolution of the All India Bar Council. The resolution is dated 27.7.2009. The degree obtained by the petitioner is in the year 2008. The said resolution is prospective and not retrospective in nature. This is what has been observed in Tamil Nadu case referred to supra by the Madras High Court. The observation made by the Madras High Court in the case referred to supra upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel on behalf of opposite party no.1 on the basis of similar legal contentions urged on behalf of the Bar Council of India in the said case aptly applies to the facts of the case in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court referred to supra by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party no.1 to justify the impugned endorsement is bad in law. Resolution No.79 of 2009 is prospective in nature and it cannot be retrospectively given effect to. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court referred to supra by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party no.1 to justify the impugned endorsement is bad in law. Resolution No.79 of 2009 is prospective in nature and it cannot be retrospectively given effect to. Though in Annamalai University case (supra) the Hon’ble apex Court has held that Regulation 2 was not contrary to the Open University Act, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice to the parties as the persons in that case who had been promoted had completed number of years of service and further the degree obtained is on the basis of the basic degree of IGNOU. The operative portion of the said order is also in favour of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, rejection of the application for enrolment on the basis of the Bar Council of India resolution No.79 of 2009, which amounts to giving retrospective effect which is not permissible in law. In G. Vikraman’s case (supra), the Madras High Court held that “the judgment of the apex Court in Annamalai University case (supra) is binding on the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Bar Council of India in so far as the applicability of the University Grants Commission Act and Regulations are concerned but the said judgment cannot be applied to the petitioner’s case as he has already obtained the law degree. The Regulations of Legal Education, 2008 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner who had already completed his law course at the time of coming into force of the Regulations.” The said resolution must be applied to the degree obtained after resolution no.79 of 2009 if it is valid in law. 10.For the reasons stated supra, the petition must succeed. Accordingly the impugned order Annexure-8 is hereby quashed. Mandamus is issued to the opposite party no.2 to accept the application of the petitioner and enrol him as an advocate on its rolls if he has no other disqualification under Section 24-A of the Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed by issuing Rule. Petition allowed.