Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 333 (MP)

Ku. Rafat Khan v. Bar Council of India

2014-03-24

ANIL SHARMA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
Judgment: Petitioners were students who had taken admission for pursuing their studies in the L. L. B. course being conducted by the respondent no. 2 University and they were admitted to the institute of respondent no. 3 for pursuing the said course. While the petitioners were so pursuing the course and when they were to appear in the L. L. B. 1st and 2nd Semester examinations, it seems that they were prevented from appearing in the examinations in view of the provisions incorporated by the Bar Council of India. The provision is Clause 28 (b) of Schedule III of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008. 2. By this Clause, certain age criteria was fixed for seeking admission to the L. L. B. course and by virtue of this, it seems that petitioners became disentitled to seek admission for the course in question. 3. That being so, matter came to this Court at the instance of the petitioners in W. P. No. 136/13 and various other cases. In all these cases, an interim order was passed on 30th September, 2013 vide Annexure P-1 and petitioners were permitted to pursue the course in question subject however to the provisions of Clause 28 (b) being upheld by the Supreme Court in a pending matter. 4. In the meanwhile, the Bar Council of India itself reconsidered the matter and the impugned clause was withdrawn by the Bar Council of India itself and a Gazette notification in this regard was issued, as a result, the age bar stipulation contained in Clause 28 (b) as it was originally existing was withdrawn and the petitioners became entitled to participate and pursue the course. Accordingly, the earlier writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 5. Grievance of the petitioners is that now even after Clause 28 (b) of the Schedule III of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 has been withdrawn by the Bar Council of India, the University i.e. respondent no. 2 is not permitting the petitioners to participate in the further examination or pursue the course. 6. 5. Grievance of the petitioners is that now even after Clause 28 (b) of the Schedule III of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 has been withdrawn by the Bar Council of India, the University i.e. respondent no. 2 is not permitting the petitioners to participate in the further examination or pursue the course. 6. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that once the impediment which prevented the petitioners from pursuing the Course i.e. Clause 28 (b) of the Schedule III of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 and the age bar created by the clause 28 (b) is withdrawn and no more in operation then if the petitioners are otherwise eligible to prosecute their studies, the University should not have any difficulty in so permitting, accordingly we are inclined to dispose of this petition with the following directions:- 7. In case, the petitioners are otherwise eligible to appear in the examination in question and pursue the course of studies, the Registrar of the University shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders with regard to permitting the petitioners to pursue the course in question and participate in the further process of examination. If the examinations are for any of the semester for which the petitioners were eligible is already over, they shall be permitted to appear in the next examination which is to be held. 8. The University shall consider the claim of the petitioners to appear in the next semester or supplementary examinations and the results of the examination of the petitioners undertaken in pursuance to the impugned orders passed by this Court shall now be declared and the petitioners shall be permitted to participate in the further process of examination in accordance with the rules of the University. 9. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. C. C. as per rules.