M.Sowkath Ali v. 1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.11.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.20071 OF 2009M.Sowkath Ali.. PetitionerVs.1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Law University, rep. by its Registrar, Greenways Road, Chennai... RespondentsThis writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamusdirecting the respondents to consider the application of thepetitioner made in application No.302308 and to grant admission tothree years B.L. Law Degree Course.For Petitioner : Mr.T.MeikandanFor Respondents : Mr.A.C.Mani Bharathi, GA for R1 Mr.V.M.G.Ramakannan for R2- - - - ORDERHeard both sides. The petitioner applied for getting intothe B.L. Law Degree course conducted by the second respondentUniversity. The petitioner at the time of filing of theapplication was 30 years old. He studied B.Sc. (Mathematics) andgot the degree from the Madurai Kamarajar University. He alsobelongs to backward class. 2.The petitioner purchased an application No.302308 forgetting into the course for the year 2009-2010. The petitioner'sapplication was not entertained by the University. By the impugnedcommunication, which was put into the Website of the University,it was stated that the petitioner was over-aged and therefore, hewas not eligible for getting into the said course. Therefore, thepetitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for adirection to consider his application without reference to hisage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The ground raised by the petitioner was the petitionerwas only 30 years and 10 days. Therefore, on that ground, hecannot be non-suited. It was also stated that since he has decidedto have career in Law and was very much interested in doing thecourse, his application should be considered without reference tothe upper age criteria. In any event, he was only 10 days' olderthan the age prescribed. 4.On notice from this Court, on behalf of the secondrespondent University, a counter affidavit, dated 12.10.2009 hasbeen filed. It was stated that as per the prospectus given by theUniversity for three years B.L. Degree course for the year 2009-2010, a candidate should not have completed 30 years of age as on1.6.2009 and in respect of SC and ST community, the maximum agecan be 35 years. It was stated that the Bar Council of India hadframed rules under Section 7(1)(h) of the Advocates Act. In Part 4of the Rule in paragraph 28-B, it was prescribed that the maximumage seeking for admission into the stream of three years BachelorDegree course in Law is limited to 30 years with condition thatconcession can be given for five years if an applicant belongs toSC or ST community or any other backward community. Since thepetitioner has crossed the maximum age, he cannot be consideredfor admission. But in the prospectus, concession has been givenonly to SC/ST community alone. 5.When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was broughtto the notice of this court that in an identical case inW.P.No.14877 of 2009 in M.Santhosh Antony Vareed Vs. TheRegistrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, dated 9.9.2009,this Court had rejected a similar contention. Therefore, the samedecision will apply to the facts of the present case also.6.If the said decision had rendered answer to the questionof maximum age, not being able to be relaxed in the light of theBar Council rules, there would have been no difficulty for thiscourt to follow the said decision in toto and to dismiss the writpetition on the legal issue raised in this writ petition. However,the learned Judge of this court in that case apart from upholdingthe right of authorities in prescribing the maximum age for entryinto the Law degree course, had chosen to make severalrecommendations which he thought fit vide his judgment inparagraph 20. Some recommendations may have sweeping impact. 7.The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Meerut DevelopmentAuthority v. Assn. of Management Studies reported in (2009) 6 SCC171 had stated that personal views of Judges cannot be thrust onthe parties. It must also be noted that reform of legal educationor for that matter any other education should be left to thedecision by the academicians and experts concerned. 8.A division bench of this Court in Dr.G.Krishnamurthy Vs.Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennaiand others reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1133 had even directed theUniversity to inspect all the affiliated colleges and submitappropriate report to this Court regarding the ills of the legal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ education in Government law colleges, so that appropriatedirections can be given to the Government. 9.The learned Judge has made several recommendations. Someof which are already part of the statutory conditions imposed bythe Bar council of India. The condition like the colleges must befull time and must have 4 to 5 hours per day was already insistedby the Bar Council of India vide its rules framed under Part 4Section B Paragraph 2.2, wherein it is stated that the workingtime of the college or the University Department should be 30hours working per week including conduct of correspondenceprogramme, tutorials, home assignment, library, clinical work andthe actual time for class room lecturers should be not less than20 hours per week. 10.The observations of the learned Judge that there must becompulsory attendance is also covered by the Rule, whereinstudents are required to put in minimum attendance of 60% in eachsubject and tutorials, moot court and practical and trainingcourse. With reference to having minimum of 60% marks for gettingadmission to the course, it must be noted that the StateGovernment has scrapped entrance test for entering into Lawcolleges. The admissions are made based on academic marks obtainedin Plus 2 examination or in degree course. It is only on the basisof merit, admissions are now made. In no case, for 5 years Lawcourse, students with less than 60% marks can gain entryespecially when competition is severe. As rules of reservation areapplied to secure social justice, there may be stray cases wheremarks may be lower in respect of filling up of those seats basedon communal roster. It is essential that the Constitutionalguarantee given to the citizens of this country cannot beinterfered through such suggestions. 11.Part IV of the Bar Council Rules regarding Law Collegeshad extensively put conditions including appointment of Professorsin paragraph 12 and establishment of library as condition No.5 inSection C in that part has been mandatorily prescribed.12.With regard to the suggestion relating to scrapping ofthree years' Law Course, it must be stated that such a debate hadalready undergone throughout the Country. The Law Ministers'working group on legal education held in September, 1995 (seeIndian Bar Review, Volume 22(4), 1995) had recommended the systemof 5 year Law Course. Subsequently, the matter was debated by theBar Council of India. The Bar Council of India has disagreed withthe recommendation of the group of Law Ministers. It was decidedto continue both systems i.e. 5 year and 3 year course in thelegal education. 13.The suggestion that antecedents of students should beverified before admitting them into the Law course had notelaborated. Even now students are required to produce conductcertificates from the respective schools or colleges in which theyhave undergone either for Plus 2 or degree course. Since studentswho have completed Plus 2 are joining 5 years Law course, therecannot be any criminal antecedents about them since at the time of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their school education, they are minors. If such minors havecommitted any action, that will be taken care by the JuvenileJustice (Care and Protection) Act, 2002, which was enacted toreform such children who are said to be in conflict with Law. Inthe guise of verifying the antecedents, one should not use thepolice for doing so. The present system of producing conductcertificates from the respective educational institutions issufficient.14.This Court thought it fit to make these observationsbecause courts are not competent to give suggestions on academicmatters. But such matters should be left to the decision makingprocess of academicians and educational experts. 15.To conclude this case, it will be worthwhile to quotefrom Meerut Development Authority's case (cited supra)."Public interest floats in a vast, deepocean of ideas, and “imagined experiences”. Itwould seem to us wise for the courts not toventure into this unchartered minefield. We arenot exercising our will. We cannot impose ourown values on society. Any such effort wouldmean to make value judgments.""The impugned judgment illustrates “thedanger of judges wrongly though unconsciouslysubstituting their own views for the views ofthe decision-maker who alone is charged andauthorised by law to exercise discretion”. Withrespect, we find that the High Court virtuallyconverted the judicial review proceedings intoan inquisitorial one."16.It may not be out of place to refer that recently aDivision Bench of the Supreme Court on finding that earlieropinion expressed by the Supreme Court in the matter of conduct ofstudent elections in educational institutions given by ArijitPasayat, J. was in the nature of private opinion and therefore,whether the court can express and write in judgment such opinionhas been referred to a decision by a Larger Bench of the SupremeCourt. 17.With these observations, the writ petition will standdismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. vvkSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.2.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Ambedkar Law University, Greenways Road, Chennai.RSM(CO)SR/2.12.2009 W.P.NO.20071 OF 2009