Himachal Pradesh High Court
Inderpal Singh vs Himachal Pradesh University & on 24 July, 2025
( 2025:HHC:24070 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
LPA No: 295 of 2024
Reserved on: 09.04.2025
Announced on: 24.07.2025
____________________________________________________________
.
Inderpal Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh University & ...Respondents
Others
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting ? Yes.
For the appellant: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for
r Respondent No.1.
Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate, for
Respondents 2 & 3.
Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel Senior Advocate
with Mr. Raman Jamalta Advocate. for
Respondent No 4
Ranjan Sharma, Judge.
Appellant-writ petitioner, Inderpal Singh, has
come up before this Court, assailing the judgement
dated 02.07.2024 [referred to as the Impugned
Judgement] passed by the Learned Single Judge in
CWP No. 2915 of 2023, In Re: Inderpal Singh vs
Himachal Pradesh University and Ors, whereby, the
recommendations dated 17.03.2023 [Annexure P-2]
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-2- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
made by the Enrolment Committee and order dated
24.03.2023 [Annexure P-1], passed by the Respondent
No. 4-Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, refusing to
.
enroll the appellant-writ petitioner, as an advocate
stands upheld ; and aforesaid orders are the subject
matter in instant Letters Patent Appeal.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Appellant-writ petitioner, Inderpal Singh had
set-up a case that he passed his B.A. First Year
from Government College, Nahan, in February, 2011.
Thereafter, he passed B.A. 2nd Year in July, 2013.
It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that
he took admission in B.A. 3rd year and he could
not qualify the paper of Environmental Studies, due
to which he was given reappear-compartment by the
University. For clearing the reappear-compartment,
he again appeared for EVS Paper of B.A. 3rd Year
in March, 2015 and after passing this paper, he
was awarded BA Third-Final certificate on 27.07.2015
[Annexure P-5 Colly in writ file].
2(i). It is averred that though the appellant
was awarded reappear-compartment in the paper
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-3- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
of Environmental Studies in BA Third-Final Year
yet, in June 2014, he got admission in Three Year
LLB Degree Course in the Respondent No. 2 & 3
.
College. Thereafter, he submitted a representation on
09.09.2014 [Annexure P-7] requesting the respondents
No. 2 & 3-College to give him provisional admission
with the undertaking, that in case, he fails to
qualify graduation, his provisional admission may be
cancelled.
2(ii).
r to
It is averred that the appellant qualified
BA Final-Third Year on 27.07.2015 [Annexure P-5,
Colly] and Three Year’s LLB Course on 17.11.2017
[Annexure P-8, Colly], and keeping in view these
qualifications, the petitioner applied for enrolment
as an Advocate with Respondent No. 4-Bar Council
of Himachal Pradesh but since, no decision was
taken regarding his enrolment, therefore, the appellant
was compelled to filed a CWP No. 1760 of 2018,
before this Court. This writ petition was listed on
22.03.2023 [Annexure P-1, Colly], when, it was disposed
of in view of consideration order, refusing enrolment
as Advocate, which was placed on record by the
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-4- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
Respondent No.4-Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh ;
reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the said
order in appropriate proceedings.
.
2(iii). Feeling aggrieved, appellant-petitioner filed
another petition, i.e. CWP No 2915 of 2023, assailing
the orders dated 17.03.2023 [Annexure P-2] and the
orders dated 24.03.2023 [Annexure P-1] whereby, the
Respondent No.4-Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh,
the ground, that he
r to
refused to enroll the petitioner as an Advocate, on
was admitted to Three Year
LLB Course without possessing B.A-Graduation Degree
and therefore, the petitioner being ineligible could
not be enrolled as an Advocate as per norms. The
recommendations made by the Enrolment Committee
for non-enrolment on 17.03.2023 and its approval
given by the General House of the Respondent No
4-Bar Council on 24.03.2023 [Annexures P-2 & P-1]
were assailed by the petitioner in the writ petition.
STAND OF RESPONDENT No 1 -UNIVERSITY
BEFORE WRIT COURT:
3. Respondent-University filed a reply-affidavit
before the Writ Court, with the specific stand that
as per Clause 6.15(a) [Annexure R-1, in writ file],
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-5- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
University accepted his candidature for examinations
on the basis of the recommendations made by the
respective Head of Institute of Respondent No 2 &
.
3 College and therefore, the writ petitioner was allowed
to continue his LLB Course.
STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.4-BAR COUNCIL
OF HIMACHAL PRADESH:
4. Respondent No 4-Bar Council of Himachal
Pradesh, filed a reply-affidavit stating that on receipt
of an application for enrolment as Advocate, the
matter was forwarded to Enrolment Committee as
per the decision taken by the General House of Bar
Council on 05.11.2022. Reply-Affidavit indicates
that the appellant-petitioner passed his Graduation
-B.A. Degree on 27.07.2015 but he took admission
in LLB in June 2014 and he appeared in LLB First
Semester regular examination in November 2014 and
the admission of the petitioner in Three Year LLB
Course without passing B.A. Degree was not as per
norms.
4(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that in view of
this discrepancy, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh
sought information from Himachal Pradesh University
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-6- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
on 01.12.2022, and in response to this, Respondent-
University supplied requisite information on 30.12.2022
[Annexure R-4/3] pointing out that the petitioner
.
had sought admission in Three Year LLB Course,
in Respondent No.2-College i.e. Mata Bala Sundri
of Legal Studies, Nahan, during the year 2014 but
without completing B.A. Degree. The communication
dated 30.12.2022 [Annexure R-4/3], further indicates
that admission to Three Year LLB Course, without
being a Graduate, was not as per norms and since
respondent-College and the petitioner had concealed
material facts, therefore, the admission was not in
accordance with law.
4(ii). Reply-Affidavit, further indicates that the
enrolment of eligible candidates as an Advocate
is governed the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar
Council of India Rules issued thereunder. The Reply
-Affidavit indicates that Bar Council of India Rules
deals with Rules on Standards of Legal Education
and Recognition of Degree in Law for the purposes
of enrolment as an Advocate also. Reply-Affidavit
refers to Rules of Legal Education Rules, 2008
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-7- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
and Chapter-II thereof and Section 4 thereof provides
that the admission to Three Year LLB Degree Course
is to be granted after obtaining Bachelor’s Degree
.
in any discipline of studies from university or any
other qualification considered as equivalent thereto
by the Bar Council of India.
4(iii). Reply states that since appellant-petitioner
had undertaken admission in Three Year LLB Degree
Course before obtaining Bachelor’s Degree, therefore,
the case was referred to the Enrolment Committee
who recommended non-enrolment of the petitioner
as an Advocate. It was averred that since petitioner
was not eligible for being enrolled as an Advocate,
therefore, his application for enrolment was rejected
by the General House of Bar Council of Himachal
Pradesh on 24.03.2023 [Annexure P-1], in view of the
recommendation made by the Enrolment Committee
of Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh on 17.03.2023
[Annexure P-2]. In this background, prayer was made
for dismissing the writ petition.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS 2 & 3-COLLEGE:
5. Respondent No.3-College filed a separate
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-8- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
reply, stating therein, that at the time of granting
admission, one Dr. S.K. Pandey, was working as
Principal of the College, who was dealing with the
.
affairs of admission and administration. It was averred
that since the aforesaid Principal was not keeping
good health, therefore, he went to his native place
for treatment during the year 2014 but did not
return back thereafter. It was averred that aforesaid
Principal Dr. S.K. Pandey, gave admission to the
petitioner in LLB Course on an application. It is stated
that the admission of petitioner in Three Year LLB
Course, at the behest of the Principal was under
some bonafide mistake as the petitioner having been
awarded re-appear in the paper of Environmental
Studies in BA-3rd year therefore, could not have been
granted admission in LLB Course.
5(ii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that no
new admission is being granted for the last two
years in the said college due to some accommodation
problem which led to the passing of an eviction
order passed by Learned Rent Controller concerned.
However, Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
-9- ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
petitioner had applied for admission to Three Year
LLB Course, knowing his ineligibility, and now he
has no right to blame the college for the said
.
admission.
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2014
BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE:
6. CWP No 2915 of 2013, was decided by
Learned Single Judge on 02.07.2024, whereby, the
orders dated 17.03.2023 [Annexures P-2] passed by
Enrolment Committee of Bar Council recommending
non-enrolment and orders dated 24.03.2023 [Annexures
P-1] passed by the General House of Bar Council
of Himachal Pradesh {Respondent No 4} in accepting
recommendation made by the Enrolment Committee ;
resulting in denying the Enrolment to the appellant
-writ petitioner as an advocate was upheld. The
operative part of the judgment dated 2.7.2024 passed
by Learned Single Judge, reads as under:-
4(ii)(e) …… In the instant case, the question is
entirely different. The petitioner was very
well aware at the time, when he took
admission in LL.B three years Degree
Course that he had not passed the B.A.
examination. He was also aware about the
eligibility condition that he ought to have
qualified B.A. degree before taking admission
to LL.B three years degree course. It is::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 10 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
for that reason, he had also furnished an
undertaking in form of a letter that he
was taking provisional admission and further
that his provisional admission was liable
to be cancelled if he could not complete
his Bachelors Degree. Notwithstanding this,.
the fact remains that the decision taken
by respondent No.4-Bar Council of Himachal
Pradesh for not admitting the petitioner
as an Advocate on its rolls cannot be
faulted. The Bar Council’s decision not toenroll the petitioner as an Advocate on
its rolls is within the four corners of
the powers and jurisdiction vested in
it under the Advocates Act and the BarCouncil of India Rules. It has not been
demonstrated by the petitioner that impugned
decision of the Bar Council of Himachal
Pradesh was not in accordance with law,
r the Advocates Act and the Bar Council
of India Rules. Impugned orders dated17.03.2023, 24.03.2023 and decision of
the Enrollment Committee at Annexure P-4
(colly) refusing to enroll the petitioner as
an Advocate on rolls of the Bar Councilof Himachal Pradesh, do not call for any
interference.
No other point was urged.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant
petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
If so advised, petitioner is at liberty
to seek appropriate remedy in accordance
with law before appropriate forum, for his
claim of damages, which has not even
been urged during hearing, and, which in
the given facts and circumstances cannot
be adjudicated in this petition.”
GROUNDS ASSAILING IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
DATED 02.07.2024 IN LPA:
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 11 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
7. Appellant-petitioner [Inderpal Singh] assailed,
the Impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2024 [Annexure AX]
passed by the Learned Single Judge on the ground
.
that firstly, the judgment has been passed without
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
and by misreading and mis-application of the facts;
and secondly, the Respondent No.1-University and
Respondent No.2-College had made the petitioner
penalizing
r him to
to suffer without any fault attributable to him by
for the errors committed by the
College and the University; and thirdly, the irregularity
in admission to Three Year LLB Course was liable
to be corrected by the Respondent No.4-Himachal
Pradesh Bar Council; and fourthly, the orders refusing
enrolment without giving an opportunity of hearing,
has visited the petitioner with civil consequences
without any fault attributable to him; and lastly,
refusal of enrolment as an Advocate was contrary to
the mandate of law passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in A Sudha vs. University of Mysore and another,
[AIR 1987 SC 2305], Rajendra Prasad Mathur
vs. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 12 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
SC 1448 and judgment of the Madras High Court
in P. Raji vs. The Secretary along with connected
matters, WP No 44224 of 2016, decided on 23.07.2018.
.
8. Heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Atharv Sharma, Learned Counsel for
the appellant and Mr. Nitin Thakur, Learned Counsel
for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Arsh Chauhan,
Learned Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 and have
9. to
gone through the case records.
Before adverting to the rival contentions,
it is necessary to have a recap of the statutory
provisions, in the Advocates Act 1961 regulating
the norms for “conferment of Three Year Bachelor’s
Degree in Law” and norms governing “Enrolment as
an Advocate” with the State Bar Council.
9(i). The relevant provisions of Section 7, Section
24 and Section 49 of the Advocates Act read as
under ;
7. (1) The functions of the Bar Council of
India shall be:-
(a) to (g) …not relevant…
(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::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 13 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
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 ;
24. Persons who may be admitted as
advocates on a State roll:-
(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 fulfils the following conditions,
namely:―
r (a)& (b) …not relevant…
(c)(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 any University inIndia which is recognized for the purposes
of this Act by the Bar Council of
India; or
(c)(iii-a). after undergoing a course of
study in law, the duration of which
is not less than two academic years
commencing from the academic year1967-68 or any earlier academic year
from any University in India which
is recognized for the purposes of this
Act by the Bar Council of India; or
49. General power of the Bar Council
of India to make rules :-
(1) The Bar Council of India may
make rules for discharging its functions
under this Act, and, in particular, such
rules may prescribe-
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 14 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
(a) to (a-e)…not relevant…
(af) the minimum qualifications required
for admission to a course of degree
in law in any recognized University;
(ag) the class or category of persons
.
entitled to be enrolled as advocates;
(ah) to (c) ….not relevant…
(d) the standards of legal education
to be observed by Universities in India
and the inspection of universities for that
purpose;
(e) to (j). …not relevant…
9(ii). In
exercise of powers
Section 7, 24 and 49 of the Advocates Act, and
r vested under
in order to regulate the legal education, which
is a pre-requisite for enrolment as an Advocate,
the Bar Council of India has notified the Rules
for Legal Education 2008, and the provisions, as
applicable in instant case, reads as under:
Rule 2(vi) Bachelor degree in law” means and
includes a degree in law conferred
by the University recognized by theBar Council of India for the purpose
of the Act and includes a bachelor
degree in law after any bachelor
degree in science, arts, commerce,
engineering, medicine, or any other
discipline of a University for a period
of study not less than three years
or an integrated bachelor degree
combining the course of a first
bachelor degree in any subject and
also the law running together in
concert and compression for not::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 15 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
less than a period of five years
after 10+2 or 11+1 courses as the
case may be.
2(xxiii) “Regular Course of Study” means
and includes a course which runs
for at least five hours a day.
continuously with an additional half
an hour recess every day and
running not less than thirty hours
of working schedule per week.
2(xxv) “Rules” means on ‘Rules of Legal
Education’.
Rule 4. Law Courses
There shall be two courses of law
leading to Bachelor’s Degree in Law
as hereunder,
4(a) A three year degree course
in law undertaken after obtaining
r a Bachelors’ Degree in any discipline
of studies from a University or anyother qualification considered equivalent
by the Bar Council of India.
Provided that admission to such a
course of study for a degree inlaw is obtained from a University
whose degree in law is recognized
by the Bar Council of India for
the purpose of enrolment.
4(b) …not relevant…
Rule 5. Eligibility for admission:
(a) Three Year Law Degree Course:
An applicant who has graduated
in any discipline of knowledge
from a University established by
an Act of Parliament or by a
State legislature or an equivalent
national institution recognized as a
Deemed to be University or foreign
University recognized as equivalent
to the status of an Indian University
by an authority competent to declare
equivalence, may apply for a three
years’ degree program in law::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 16 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
leading to conferment of LL.B.
degree on successful completion
of the regular program conducted
by a University whose degree in
law is recognized by the Bar Council
of India for the purpose of enrolment.
.
Rule 16. Conditions for a University to affiliate
a Centre of Legal Education
…not relevant…
Rule 43. Dispute Resolution Body
The Legal Education Committee of
the Bar Council of India shall be
the dispute resolution body for all
disputes relating to legal education,which shall follow a procedure ensuring
natural justice for such dispute
r resolution as is determined by it.
10. In the backdrop of the factual matrix
and the statutory provisions, as applicable, this
Court proceeds to analyze the contentions of the
Learned Senior Counsel, for the appellant here-
in-under:
ANALYSIS OF APPELLANT:
10(i). First contention of Learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant-petitioner is that the Impugned
Judgment dated 02.07.2024 has been passed without
appreciating the facts and the material on record.
The above contention is misconceived, for
the reason, that Learned Single Judge has duly
considered the factual matrix and has discussed
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 17 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
the scope and applicability of Advocates Act and
Legal Education Rules 2008, notified by Bar Council
of India and the provision of Rule 4(a) and Rule
.
5 (a), thereof, which mandates that the admission
to the Three Year Degree Course in law can be
undertaken after obtaining Bachelor’s Degree in any
discipline of studies from university or any other
qualification considered as equivalent by the Bar
Council of India. In the teeth of these Rules, the
Learned Single Judge has recorded a finding that
appellant-writ petitioner was admitted to LLB Three
Year Course in June 2014 by the Respondents
No. 2 & 3-College but without being a Graduate,
as the appellant had passed his Graduation [B.A]
only on 27.07.2015. Perusal of Rule 2(vi) and
Rule 4(a) and Rule 5(a) of the Legal Education
Rules 2008, prescribes that a person has to satisfy
twin conditions before enrolment as an advocate
i.e. firstly, a possesses a Bachelors degree of not
less than three year in arts, science, or any other
discipline from a University established by an act
of Parliament or a State Legislature etc. and secondly,
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 18 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
after graduation to undertake three year degree
in law, on successful completion of regular program
conducted by a University whose degree in law is
.
recognized by the Bar Council of India. The material
on record in the writ file, ex-facie establishes that
the appellant was not a Graduate [BA-Arts], when,
he secured admission to Three Year Law Course.
In these circumstances, once for want of Graduation
{BA, in this case} the appellants admission to Three
Year LLB Degree Course from the Respondent No
2 & 3 College, was contrary to and dehors the
Rules, then, the refusal of the Enrolment Committee
as well as General House of Respondent No 4-Bar
Council of Himachal Pradesh to enroll the appellant
-writ petitioner as an advocate in terms of the orders
dated 17.03.2023 [Annexure P-2] and on 24.03.2023
[Annexure P-1], do not suffer from any infirmity.
Thus, the contention of Learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant, is devoid of any merit and is turned
down.
10(ii). Second contention of Learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant-writ petitioner is that he has been
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 19 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
made to suffer without any fault attributable to
him and due to the omissions on the part of the
Respondent-University and Respondents 2 and 3-
.
College.
The above contention of Learned Senior
Counsel is misconceived. It is the own case of
appellant-writ petitioner that though he appeared
in BA Third Year Examination in March 2014 but
he was given reappear-compartment in the paper of
environmental studies. The appellant attempted his
reappear paper in March 2015 and after passing
the aforesaid paper, he was declared successful
in Graduation-BA-Course by University on 27.07.2015
{Annexure P-5} whereas the appellant-writ petitioner
had already secured admission in Three Year LLB
Course in June 2014 in Respondent 2 & 3-College,
despite not being a Graduate at the relevant time.
Moreover, the appellant knew about his ineligibility
at the time of his admission to Three Year LLB
Course, for not being a Graduate, which is borne
out from the application submitted to the College
on 09.09.2014 [Annexure P-7], admitting that in
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 20 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
case, he fails to clear his reappear in paper of
environmental studies of BA Third Year then, his
admission to the Three Year LLB Course may be
.
cancelled. Even a perusal of Rule 2(vi) read with
Rule 4(a) and Rule 5 (a) of the Rules of Legal
Education, mandates that the admission to Three
Year Degree Course could be accorded only to
those who possess Bachelor’s Degree [Graduation] in
any discipline of studies from a university. Further,
perusal of communication dated 30.12.2022 Annexure
R-4/3 sent by the Respondent-University to the
Respondent No.4-Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh
negates the claim of appellant for enrolment, stating
that appellant petitioner passed his Graduation/BA
Degree subsequently (on 27.07.2015) whereas Principal
of the Respondent No.2-College had already granted
admission to him in the Three Year LLB Course
earlier (in June 2014), despite being ineligible. This
communication indicates concealment of material facts
by petitioner as well as the College Authorities, which
had led to the improper admission of the appellant
in Three Year LLB course. Even Reply-Affidavit filed
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 21 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
by Respondent No.2-College admits that the then
Principal of the College, who was in-charge of the
admission and administration granted admission to
.
the petitioner in LLB Course, due to bonafide mistake.
Moreover, the appellant-writ petitioner himself has
chosen to secure admission to Three Year LLB Course
from Respondent 2 & 3-College, despite his ineligibility.
Appellant has not been able to establish his eligibility
while securing admission to Three Year LLB Course,
(being not a graduate). Nothing has been placed on
record before Writ Court and even in the instant
proceedings {LPA} to establish that the appellant-writ
petitioner was eligible at time of securing admission
to Three Year LLB Course (not being a graduate). In
this scenario, once appellant-petitioner had secured
admission to the Three Year Law Course (in June
2014) without possessing the essential qualification
of Graduation-Bachelor’s Degree (which was passed
on 27.07.2015). Thus, once for want of Graduation,
the admission of the appellant-writ petitioner to LLB
Course was bad (being ineligible) therefore, neither
any locus nor any right can be said to have accrued
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 22 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
to the appellant, an ineligible incumbent, so as to
seek enrolment as an advocate, dehors the Rules.
Accordingly, the Impugned Judgment and impugned
.
orders refusing to enroll the appellant-writ petitioner
as an advocate [vide Annexures P-2 & P-1 in writ
file], do not suffer from any infirmity.
10(iii). Third contention of Learned Senior Counsel
is that the irregularity in granting admission to
No.4-Himachal
r to
Three Year LLB Course can be cured by Respondent
Pradesh Bar Council, as appellant
had incurred expenses and has put in Three Year
in pursuing LLB Course.
The above contention of Learned Senior
Counsel for appellant is without any merit, for the
reason, that “right of enrolment as an Advocate”
accrues to a person, who fulfils the “twin conditions”
i.e. who possesses Three Year Bachelor’s Degree in
any discipline from a University established by an
act of Parliament or a State Legislature and after
passing Graduation, such a person was admitted to
Three Year Law Course and on successful completion
of regular program conducted by a University whose
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 23 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of
India, in terms of the Rules for Legal Education,
notified by Bar Council of India, including Rule 2 (vi)
.
read with Rule 4(a) and Rule 5(a) of Rules of
2008. Notably, requirement of eligibility to a course
is mandatory. Prescription of eligibility for admission
to a course flowing from Statutory Enactment or
Rule issued thereunder has the force of law and
such prescriptions cannot be diluted in any manner.
Diluting or easing out prescribed mandates, relating
to eligibility for admission to a course shall lead to
educational chaos, which shall result in disturbing
the entire education system, except in eventualities,
same is expressly permitted under the Statute or
Rules. No such eventuality has been pointed out, in
instant case. Contention of Learned Senior Counsel
that the eligibility conditions may be eased out, by
treating them to be directory, in order to meet out
and eradicate hardships or suffering caused to the
appellant-writ petitioner, is without any merit, for
the reason, that it is the appellant-writ petitioner,
himself chose a route for securing admission to
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 24 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
Three Year Law Course, contrary to and dehors
the norms, despite being ineligible, for want of
Graduation Degree as mentioned above. The inaction
.
or wrong doings of appellant-writ petitioner himself
in securing admission cannot be permitted to be made
the basis for diluting or easing out the mandatory
norms, so as perpetuate illegality. Non-fulfilment
of the mandatory eligibility conditions prescribed in
norms governing admission to a course of study is
an illegality. Hardships or sufferings if any, caused
due to an erroneous admission to a course of study
cannot be sought for or claimed to be ratified, when,
a person seeking admission was ineligible and factum
of ineligibility was within his knowledge, as in
instant case. Even, ignorance of law is no excuse
and the appellant herein has neither any locus
nor any right to seek rectification of an illegality in
admission to LLB Course made dehors the norms,
and this inherent ineligibility has resulted in rendering
the appellant-petitioner as “ineligible for enrolment
as an advocate”, in terms of the Statute and Rules,
as discussed hereinabove. In these circumstances,
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 25 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
the Impugned Judgement passed by Learned Single
Judge and impugned orders dated 17.03.2023 and
24.03.2023, denying enrolment to the appellant as an
.
Advocate, does not warrant any interference in the
instant proceedings.
10(iv). Fourth contention of Learned Senior Counsel
that the Enrolment Committee and Bar Council has
refused to enroll the appellant as an Advocate,
as per
communications dated 17.03.2023
24.03.2023 {Annexures P-2 & P-1 in writ file} without
r and on
affording an opportunity of hearing, resulting in civil
consequences.
Though the above contention appears to
be attractive but on scanning the material on
record in writ file, this Court is of the considered
view, that as per Rule 2(v) read with Rule 4(a)
and Rule 5(a) of the Rules for Legal Education,
a person could seek admission to the Three Year
Bachelor’s Degree Course in Law only after being
a Graduate in any discipline from a University
established by law and upon successful completion
of regular course, such a person could be enrolled
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 26 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
as an advocate. In backdrop of the Rules, once
appellant-petitioner knew that he did not possess
Graduation Degree at the time of securing admission
.
to Three Year LLB Course in June 2014 and this
fact is corroborated from the communication dated
09.09.2014 {Annexure P-7} sent by the appellant to
the College admitting that he was not a Graduate
and in case he fails to qualify Graduation, then,
provisional admission to the Law Course may be
cancelled. Material on record reveals that appellant-
writ petitioner acquired and passed Graduation
on 27.07.2015, Annexure P-5, {after clearing reappear
-compartment}.
Thus, in these circumstances, once the
admission of appellant-writ petitioner to Three Year
Law Course was dehors the Rules and the appellant
had knowledge of his ineligibility, therefore, the
indisputable /admitted ineligibility of the appellant-
writ petitioner while securing admission to Three
Year Law Course is enough to negate the plea of
violation of principles of natural justice, for the
reason, that the Respondent No 4-Bar Council of
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 27 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
Himachal Pradesh cannot be compelled to enroll the
appellant-writ petitioner as an Advocate, contrary to
and dehors the mandate of the Statute and the
.
Rules. The plea of non-compliance of principles of
natural justice is neither attracted nor applicable
when, the appellant herein, has not been able to
point out any provision, {based on Advocates Act or
Rules} to establish that his admission to Three Year
Law Course,
without being a
confer eligibility or a right to be enrolled as an
r Graduate, will still
advocate. Accordingly, the plea of Learned Senior
Counsel alleging violation of natural justice despite
having knowledge that his admission to LLB Course
was dehors the statute and rules, which shall
only perpetuate illegality, and therefore, the contention
of Learned Counsel is turned down.
10(v). Last contention of Learned Senior Counsel
for appellant-petitioner that the Impugned Judgment
dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Learned Single
Judge is contrary to law in the case of A Sudha
[AIR 1987 SC 2305]; Rajendra Prasad Mathur
[AIR 1986 SC 1448] and P. Raji [W.P. No. 44242/
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 28 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
2016, decided on 23.07.2018].
The above contention of Learned Senior
Counsel is misplaced, as the judgements in the case
.
of Rajendra Prasad Mathur and A Sudha (supra)
are not applicable in facts and circumstances of
instant case. The fact-situation in instant case is
altogether different from the factual matrix in the
cases of A Sudha, (supra) which related to admission
of a candidate in MBBS Course, wherein, ineligible
incumbents were sent communication by management
/principal of college by admitting them to MBBS
Course. In the case of Rajinder Mathur, (supra),
the incumbent therein was given admission, to the
engineering Course, involving interpretation of 10+2
system of Education vis-à-vis PUC and the admission
granted was cancelled, but due to interim orders the
aforesaid incumbent and several others continued
the Course and by judicial intervention, they were
allowed to continue the engineering course. So far
as the judgment in the case of P. Raji (supra) is
concerned, the Learned Single Judge has discussed
its non-applicability in the judgment, wherein, the
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 29 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
issue was as to whether qualification of 10th and
+2 examination passed privately without persecuting
a regular course will render a person eligible for
.
admission to Three Year LLB course or not.
In the instant appeal, the factual matrix,
is at variance, wherein, the appellant-writ petitioner
despite having knowledge about his ineligibility, had
applied and was thereafter admitted to Three Year
is a sine qua non
r to
LLB Course without having passed Graduation which
for admission to Three Year
LLB Course under the Advocates Act, Bar Council
Rules and Rules of Legal Education [Rule 2(vi),
Rule 4(a) and Rule 5(a)] coupled with communication
submitted by appellant to the Respondent 2 & 3
-College, dated 09.09.2014 [Annexure P-7] admitting
his ineligibility for not possessing the Graduation
Degree. Further Learned Senior Counsel for appellant
has not been able to point out any provision in
the statute or the statutory rules to establish the
eligibility of appellant-writ petitioner “for admission
to the Law Course without being a Graduate” and
further the “illegality in admission shall not constitute
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 30 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
an ineligibility for enrolment as an advocate” then,
in the absence of violation of any right under a
Statute or Rules, no mandamus can be issued
.
so as to command Respondent No 4-Bar Council
of Himachal Pradesh to enroll the appellant-
writ petitioner despite his ineligibility and that
too dehors the Statute / Rules, is impermissible.
In these circumstances, the Impugned Orders passed
by Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, refusing to
enroll the appellant-writ petitioner as an Advocate
does not suffer from any perversity, infirmity or
illegality and the Impugned Judgment passed by
Learned Single Judge upholding these orders, do
not warrant any interference in these proceedings.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS No 4:
11. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr Sunil Mohan
Goel, for Respondent No 4-Bar Council of Himachal
Pradesh, supported the orders dated 17.03.2023 and
the orders dated 24.03.2023 {Annexures P-2 and P-1,
in writ file} and the Impugned Judgement dated
02.07.2024, asserting that a valid admission to the
Three Year Law Course, after Graduation and upon
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 31 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
successful completion of such regular course is a
sine qua non for enrolment. Since no right has been
violated therefore, the refusal to enroll him as an
.
advocate in accordance with applicable norms, is
legal and valid and appellant-writ petitioner cannot
claim any benefits dehors the established norms.
Moreover, a perusal of Para 59 of the judgment
in case of P. Raji, (supra) negates the plea of
terms:-
r to
the appellant-writ petitioner herein, in the following
“59. In view of the observations above, we
hold that candidates who have obtained
the Three Year LLB Degree from a
University established by statute,
recognized by the University Grants
Commission, approved affiliated Centre
of Legal Education/ Departments of the
recognized University as approved by
the Bar Council of India for the purpose
of enrolment, after graduating from
Universities established by statute by
prosecuting regular Bachelor’s Degree
courses, shall not be refused
enrolment. Once a degree is found to be
authentic, it is not for the Bar Council to
go behind the degree and enquire into the
eligibility of the candidates to take
admission in the University.”
Even, the judgment in the case of P.
Raji (supra) mandates, that enrolment as advocate,
is to be accorded to candidates who possess the
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 32 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
Graduation in any discipline and thereafter apply
and are admitted to regular Three Year Bachelors
Law Course and on successful completion of said
.
Course are enrolled with the State Bar Council(s).
In the instant case, once the admission to LLB
was secured by the appellant-writ petitioner without
possessing the Graduate Degree then, as per the
judgment in the case of P. Raji (supra) and the
Statute i.e. [Advocates Act and Bar Council of India
Rules, including Rules on Legal Education
r Rules,
including Rule 4(a) and Rule 5(a)] therefore, the
enrolment of ineligible candidates, as an advocate
cannot be claimed or granted dehors the law.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS No 1 & 2:
12. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-
University and College has supported the impugned
judgement, contending that once the appellant-writ
petitioner has secured admission to Three Year LLB
Course with open eyes, knowing his ineligibility and
was aware of the consequences flowing therefrom,
therefore, the appellant-writ petitioner cannot turn
around and claim benefits dehors the Statue and
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 33 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
the Rules, as referred to above.
CONCLUSION:
13. Undisputedly, the appellant-writ petitioner
.
passed Graduation {B.A. IIIrd Year Degree Course}
from the Respondent No 1-University on 27.07.2015
[Annexure P-5], after passing the reappear-compartment
-supplementary in one Paper. In the month of
June 2014, knowing his ineligibility, that he was
not a Graduate at that point of time, the appellant
-got admission in Three Year LLB Degree Course
in Respondents 2 and 3 College. Material on record
indicates that the appellant-writ petitioner submitted
representation on 9.9.2014 [Annexure P-7] that his
provisional admission may be continued, admitting
himself to be not eligible for admission to Three
Year LLB Course. Despite ineligibility, the Respondents
2-3 College, for reasons known to college forwarded
his candidature for continuance in Three Year Law
Course and he passed the Course on 17.11.2017
[Annexure P-8]. Ater passing the Law Course, the
appellant-writ petitioner applied for enrolment with
Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and in view of
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 34 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
the inherent ineligibility in admission, the application
for enrolment was forwarded by General House of
Bar Council to Enrolment Committee on 5.11.2022
.
and after due consideration, the Enrolment Committee
of the State Bar Council recommended his non-
enrolment on 17.03.2023 [Annexure P-2], and this
was approved by General House of Bar Council on
24.03.2023 [Annexure P-1].
The claim of the appellant-writ petitioner
for enrolment as an advocate, and the impugned
orders passed by the Respondent No 4-Himachal
Pradesh Bar Council, refusing enrolment, which were
upheld by Learned Single Judge does not warrant
any interference, in the instant proceedings. Firstly,
as per the mandate of Section 7, 24 and 49 of
the Advocates Act and Rules of Legal Education,
2008 notified by the Bar Council of India and Rule
2(vi), Rule 4(a) & Rule 5(a), a person could only
be admitted in Three Year Bachelor’s Law Course,
only after passing Bachelor’s Degree in any discipline
of studies from a University or any other qualification
considered equivalent by Bar Council of India and
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 35 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
on successful completion of the regular programme
conducted by the University, for enrolment with the
Bar Council ; and secondly, a combined reading
.
of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 establishes that
appellant-writ petitioner was granted admission to
Three Year LLB Degree Course without being a
Graduate; and thirdly, once the Three Year LLB
Degree Course was passed without being a Graduate
then, the appellant-writ petitioner was ineligible for
admission and for being conferred the LLB Degree
and also for enrolment in the teeth of Rule 2(vi)
and Rule 4(a) and 5(a) of Legal Education Rules;
and fourthly, the appellant herein has admitted
his ineligibility for admission to Law Course, in
communication dated 09.09.2014 [Annexure P-7],
sent by him to the College; and fifthly, once the
appellant had secured admission in Three Year LLB
Degree Course, without being a Graduate then, the
prescription of eligibility for admission to a course
flowing from Statutory Enactment or Rule issued
thereunder has force of law and such prescriptions
cannot be diluted in any manner. Diluting or easing
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 36 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
out prescribed mandates, relating to eligibility for
admission to a course shall lead to educational
chaos, which shall result in disturbing the entire
.
education system, except in eventualities, when,
the same is expressly permitted under the Statute
or Rules. No such eventuality has been pointed
out, in the instant case; and sixthly, the mandatory
eligibility conditions for admission to course, its
which accrue
r to
successful completion and thereafter for enrolment,
from a composite scheme under
the Rules cannot be eased out, by treating these
prescriptions to be directory; and seventhly, once
the appellant-writ petitioner himself chose a route
for securing admission to Three Year Law Course,
contrary to and dehors the norms, despite being
ineligible, for want of Graduation Degree then, the
inaction or wrong doings or individual hardships
or sufferings cannot be a ground, for seeking easing
out or ratifying the wrong doings, contrary to the
mandatory prescriptions, and permitting this, will
perpetuate illegality; and eighthly, non-fulfilment of
eligibility conditions prescribed in norms, governing
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 37 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
admission to a course of study is an illegality
and ignorance of law is no excuse and the appellant
-writ petitioner has neither any locus nor any
.
right to seek rectification of an illegality in admission
to LLB Course made dehors the norms”, and this
inherent ineligibility has resulted in rendering the
appellant-writ petitioner “ineligible for enrolment as
an advocate” in terms of the Statute and Rules ;
and ninthly, the appellant has not been able to
point out any provision in the applicable statute
or statutory rules to establish his eligibility “for
admission to the Three Year Law Course without
being a Graduate” and also that the “illegality in
admission shall not operate as an ineligibility for
enrolment as an advocate” in the instant case; and
tenthly, the appellant-writ petitioner has not been
able to assert his right for validating his admission
and for permitting enrolment as an advocate under
a Statute or Rules and therefore, no mandamus
can be issued so as to command the Respondent
No 4-Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh to enroll
the appellant-writ petitioner as an advocate, despite
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 38 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
his ineligibility and that too dehors the mandate of
the Statute / Rules ; and lastly, the appellant-writ
petitioner has not been able to point out any provisions
.
of Himachal Pradesh University to establish that
reappear-compartment in one paper of BA Final-
Third Year taken in March, 2015 and qualified
on 27.07.2015 [Annexure P-5 Colly in writ file]
was to relate back to date he had passed other
papers of B.A 3rd Year Final Year in March 2014;
and the appellant-writ petitioner has failed to avail
the remedy before the designated Dispute Resolution
Body of the Bar Council of India, {as mandated
under Rule 43 (if any) of the Rules of Legal
Education ; and the power vested in Bar Council
to enrol a class or particular category of person
would also include the power to refuse enrolment,
as has been done in instant case, in view of the
ineligibility of appellant-writ petitioner while securing
admission to Three Year Law Course and once
the admission was vitiated, being contrary to and
dehors the Statute /Rules rendering the foundation
order bad {i.e. admission to Law Course, being not
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 39 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
a Graduate} then, the edifice or structure built
thereon {Law course} shall automatically fall ; and
the plea of violation of natural justice is neither
.
attracted nor can it be invoked, when, the appellant
had admitted and acknowledged his ineligibility, in
terms of the Statute and the rules, while securing
admission to the said Law Course and moreover,
when, the appellant-writ petitioner has not questioned
the provisions of Section 7, 24, 49 (1) (ag) of the
Advocates Act and the Rules, which deny or refuse
the enrolment as an advocate to the appellant-
writ petitioner in these proceedings. Permitting or
granting leverage either to the candidates and/or
to the Institutes to resort to admissions of ineligibles
dehors the established and applicable norms, shall
be an illegality, which shall adversely affect the
standards of education and bring inefficiency in
legal profession and thus, the prescribed standards,
cannot be permitted to be eased out or diluted,
just to enable the appellant-writ petitioner to seek
ratification or to undo his known and admitted
wrongs or inactions, in facts and circumstances of
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 40 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
the instant case.
14. Based on the above discussion, this Court
is of the considered view, that Impugned Judgment
.
dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Learned Single
Judge in CWP No. 2915 of 2023, In re: Inderpal
Singh versus Himachal Pradesh University and
Others, does not suffer any perversity, infirmity or
illegality and the judgment has been passed after
due appreciation of the facts, statutory provisions
and the material on record, does not warrants any
interference in the instant intra-court appeal and
the same is accordingly upheld.
15. Prayer no (b) below Para 18 of the writ
petition, regarding the claim for damages, which
was not pressed before the Learned Single Judge
is also not pressed by Learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant in the instant appeal.
16. No other point is argued or pressed in the
instant appeal.
DIRECTIONS:
17. In view of the above discussion and
for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant
::: Downloaded on – 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
– 41 – ( 2025:HHC:24070 )
Appeal, is dismissed, in the following reasons:-
(i). Impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2024,
passed by Learned Single Judge in
CWP No. 2915 of 2023, In Re: Inderpal.
Singh versus Himachal Pradesh University
& Ors., is upheld ;
(ii) Impugned orders i.e. recommendations
dated 17.03.2023 [Annexure P-2] made
by Enrolment Committee and its approval
by General House of Respondent No-4-
Council on 24.03.2023 [Annexure P-1],
refusing to enroll the appellant-petitioner
r as an Advocate, is upheld ;
(iii). Directions contained in Para 5 of
Impugned Judgment dated 02.07.2024
qua damages are reiterated ; and/or
to seek appropriate remedy, by way
of Dispute Resolution Body of the Bar
Council of India, if any {under Rule
43, of Rules of Legal Education} ; if so
desires ;
(iv). Parties to bear respective costs.
In aforesaid terms, the instant appeal
and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any,
shall also stand disposed of.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma)
Chief Justice Judge
July 24, 2025
[tm]
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2025 21:25:09 :::CIS
[ad_1]
Source link