In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Versus
Lucknow University
and others Respondents
Index
|
S No
|
Description of documents relied upon
|
|
Page No
|
|
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
1.
|
List of Dates and Events (separate)
|
Separate
|
|
|
2.
|
Application for Interim Relief
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Memo of Writ Petition
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Annexure No 1
Copy of the representation dated 27/05/2013 given to Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University |
|
|
|
5.
|
Annexure No 2
Copy of the University form which fixes 30 years as the upper age for 3 year L Lb course |
|
|
|
6.
|
Annexure No 3
Copy of the representation dated 01/07/2013 given to Vice Chancellor, Lucknow University |
|
|
|
7.
|
Affidavit
|
|
|
|
8.
|
Para
14- Photo Identity- copies of Petitioner’s Passport
|
|
|
Lucknow (Amitabh
Thakur)
Dated- 05/07/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34526
Dated- 05/07/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34526
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Versus
Lucknow University
and others Respondents
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
S No Date Event
1.
2008 Bar
Council of India introduces age limits
in
3 year and 5 years L Lb courses
2.
01/11/2009 Hon’ble
Andhra Pradesh High Court stays
the
Bar Council rule regarding age limit
3.
27/05/2013 Petitioner
sends a representation to Vice
Chancellor,
Lucknow University
4.
29/06/2013 Petitioner applies for 3 year L Lb course
in
Lucknow University
5.
01/07/2013 Petitioner
sends another representation
to Lucknow University
Since the
Vice Chancellor of the Lucknow University has not entertained any of the representations
dated 01/05/2013 and 01/07/2013 presented by the petitioner to him, so as to
allow him to proceed further to submit his application form to participate in
the entrance process for the L Lb examination and the petitioner is being
denied his legal right on the incorrect ground of upper age limit of 30 years
being fixed for 3 years L Lb course by the Lucknow University in pursuance of
the Bar Council of India Rules, despite the fact that these Rules have been
stayed by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, hence the petitioner is left
with no option than to approach this Hon’ble Court to direct the Respondent to allow
the petitioner to proceed further in the admission process for 3 years L Lb
course.
Hence this Writ petition
Lucknow (Amitabh
Thakur)
Dated- 05/07/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34526
Dated- 05/07/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34526
In the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Versus
Lucknow University
and others Respondents
Application for
Interim Relief
The petitioner most humbly submits as under-
For the facts, reasons and substances stated in the accompanying Writ
petition, duly submitted by an Affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon’ble High Court may very kindly be pleased to grant the following
interim relief-
(a)
to direct the Respondent No 1 (Lucknow University) to receive the
application from the petitioner without reference to the age limit under Clause
28 of Schedule III to Legal Education Rules, 2008 under Chapter III of Bar
Council of India Rules or in the alternative to suspend operation of Clause 28
of Schedule III of Bar Council of India Rules, pending disposal of the above
writ petition.
This Hon’ble court may further be pleased to any other order that it
thinks necessary, in the interest of justice during the pendency of the
petition.
Lucknow Asok
Pande
Dated- /07/2013 Counsel for Petitioner
# 94154-65438
Dated- /07/2013 Counsel for Petitioner
# 94154-65438
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur,
aged about 45 years, son of Sri Tapeshwar Narayan Thakur, r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow -------- Petitioner
Versus
1.
Lucknow University through the
Registrar, Lucknow University, Lucknow
2.
Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse
Avenue, Institutional Area,. Near Bal Bhawan. New Delhi – 110 002
3.
State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal
Secretary, Higher Education, Civil
Secretariat, Lucknow ------- Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the
aforesaid Court:
The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully begs
to submit as under
1.
That by means of this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying before the
Hon’ble Court to kindly issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Clause 28 of Schedule III
to Legal Education Rules, 2008 issued by the Respondent No 2, Bar Council of
India as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
constitution of India and in violation of the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961
and consequentially set aside the same and to issue an appropriate writ or
order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
directing the respondent No 1, Lucknow University to accordingly allow the
petitioner to study 3 years law course from Lucknow University or one of its
affiliated Colleges, by quashing the Rule
enforced by it whereby the maximum age limit for admission to 3 years Bachelor
of Law (L Lb, for short) course has been fixed at 30 years in pursuance of the above
Rules as being fundamentally defective and incorrect and to permit the petitioner
to participate in the entrance process for admission to 3 year L Lb course in
the light of the above facts and also because the above Rules of the Bar
Council have already been stayed by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The
petitioner also seeks an Interim Relief to instruct the respondents to allow
him to participate in the admission process and get enrolled, if found
otherwise fit and eligible, with the imposed conditions that this enrolment, if
any, shall remain subject to the final order of this Writ Petition.
The petitioner declares that he has not filed any other Writ petition
before the Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to
the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ
petition and it is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no
caveat notice has been received by the petitioner.
2.
That the petitioner is an IPS officer in
UP Cadre but he is filing this Writ Petition purely in his individual capacity.
3.
That the matter concerns the process of
taking the entrance examination for the 3 years L Lb Course in the Lucknow
University.
4.
That the Lucknow University has decided
to follow the Clause 28 of Schedule III to Rules of Legal
Education, 2008 of the Bar Council of India (BCI, for
short) whereby an age limit of 30 years has been fixed for 3 years L Lb course
for General category candidates, with 5 years exemption for certain specific
categories.
5.
That Clause 28 of the Rules of Legal
Education, 2008 reads as follows:- “28. Age on admission: (a) Subject to the
condition stipulated by a University on this behalf and the high degree of
professional commitment required, the maximum age for seeking admission into a
stream of integrated Bachelor of law degree program, is limited to twenty years
in case of general category of applicants and to twenty two years in case of
applicants from SC, ST and other Backward communities. (b) Subject to the
condition stipulated by a University, and the general social condition of the
applicants seeking legal education belatedly, the maximum age for seeking
admission into a stream of Three Year Bachelor Degree Course in Law, is limited
to thirty years with right to the University to give concession of 5 further
year for the applicant belonging to SC or ST or any other Backward Community.”
6.
That this
Clause has been agitated in various Hon’ble High Courts, including there in the
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 6691/2009 (Private Law Colleges, Hyderabad vs The Bar
Council of India and others where
the above age limits fixed by BCI was challenged with this prayer-“ to issue an
appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the Clause 28 of Schedule III to Legal Education
Rules, 2008 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and in violation of the
provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and consequentially set aside the same and pass.”
7.
That in
this Writ Petition, a W.P. M.P NO 8755/2009 was
presented which the prayer –“to direct the 4th respondent to receive the applications from the
intended applicants without reference to the age limit under Clause 28 of
Schedule III to Legal Education Rules, 2008 under Chapter III of Bar Council of
India Rules or in the alternative to suspend operation of Clause 28 of Schedule
III of Bar Council of India Rules, pending disposal of the above writ petition,
and pass.”
8.
That the petitioner presents the order of the Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court as regards this MP No 8755/2009 which will clarify most of
the issue concerned with this case- “The petitioner, a
Private Law Colleges Management Association, questions the validity of Clause
28 of Schedule III to Rules of Legal Education, 2008, issued by the Bar Council
of India. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the petitioner seeks
suspension of the said Clause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in Clause 28 of the said Rules, the maximum age for seeking admission into five
years Law course is prescribed as 20 years, and for three years law course as
30 years. Clause 28 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 reads as follows:- “28.
Age on admission: (a) Subject to the condition stipulated by a University on
this behalf and the high degree of professional commitment required, the
maximum age for seeking admission into a stream of integrated Bachelor of law
degree program, is limited to twenty years in case of general category of applicants
and to twenty two years in case of applicants from SC, ST and other Backward
communities. (b) Subject to the condition stipulated by a University, and the
general social condition of the applicants seeking legal education belatedly,
the maximum age for seeking admission into a stream of Three Year Bachelor
Degree Course in Law, is limited to thirty years with right to the University
to give concession of 5 further year for the applicant belonging to SC or ST or
any other Backward Community.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Bar Council of India
has no power to prescribe the maximum age limit either for three years degree
course or five years degree course under the powers conferred on it by the
Advocates Act, 1961. The said Rules of Legal Education have been formulated in
exercise of the powers conferred upon the Bar Council of India under Sections
7(1)(h) and (i), 24 (1) (b) (iii) and (iiia), 49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the
Advocates Act, 1961. Sections 7(1)(h) and (i), 24 (1) (b) (iii) and (iiia),
49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 read as follows:- Section 7(1)(h) to promote legal education and
to lay down standard of such education in consultation with the Universities in
India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Section 7(1) (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 given in this behalf). Section 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:- (b) he has completed the age of twenty one years.
(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 in India which is recognized for the purposes of this Act by the Bar
Council of India; or (iiia) After undergoing a course of study in law, the
duration of which is not less than two academic years commencing from the
academic year 1967-68 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.
Section 49(1)(af) The minimum qualifications required for admission to a
course of degree in law in any unrecognized University. Section 49(1)(ag) The case or category of persons entitled to
be enrolled as Advocates. Section 49(1)(d)
The standards of legal education to be observed by University in India
and the inspection of Universities for that purpose.”
Upon perusal of the above provisions, we are of the prima facie opinion
that the same do not confer any power on the Bar Council of India to prescribe
the maximum age limit for pursuing legal education. Accordingly, we suspend the
operation of clause 28 of the said Rules.
9.
That the above order clarifies and
presents the entire matter being agitated by the petitioner because here the
petitioner is again challenging the Clause 28 seeking a Writ in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the Clause 28 of Schedule III to Legal Education
Rules, 2008 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of
Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and in violation of the
provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and consequentially set aside the same.
10.
That
other than the facts discussed and presented in the above Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court order, this Clause incorporated by BCI is completely
incorrect and baseless for the following reasons as well-
(a)
there is no rationale for fixing such
age limit
(b)
law is a subject where fixing any age
limit for learning the subject is improper
(c)
this upper age limit restricts a large
number of persons from studying, understanding and learning a subject like law
which shall possibly be read and understood by one and all
(d)
there is no upper age limit for
advocates to practice in the Hon’ble Courts and hence any person who studies
law at any age can practice law for many years whenever he/she starts practice
(e)
stopping any person from studying law is
cruel and inappropriate and goes against National interest because every person
who knows law properly has a higher probability of becoming a better citizen as
he has a higher possibility of adhering to law of the land
(f)
stopping any person from entering the
legal profession is equally cruel and inappropriate because a person can start
his practice at any age and become a very successful and useful lawyer, thus
contributing positively to the society
(g)
legal profession is not one that needs
lot of physical work but it is more concerned with mental faculties and brain
work, Hence even a person in somewhat advanced ages can very well work as an
efficient lawyer
11.
That
what the above facts state is that the upper age limit fixed for law education
is completely arbitrary and incorrect.
12.
That with the order of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court the
contentious Clause 28 related with age limit automatically
became inoperative with the above order.
13.
That though the order was passed by the
Hon’ble AP High Court but since it was directed towards the BCI which is an All
India body and withheld the concerned Rules of the BCI, hence this order
naturally became operational all through the country, including the territory
of Uttar Pradesh (including the jurisdiction of Lucknow University).
14.
That to the best of the petitioner’s
knowledge, this order of the Hon’ble AP High Court has not been put on hold or
stayed or intervened or overruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus this
order remains operative as on date.
15.
That in the above circumstances, after
the passing of the above order, the BCI order ceased being effective till any
further order and no upper age limit should have been prescribed by any of the
Universities or law colleges for admission to either 3 years or 5 years L Lb
courses.
16.
That thus there should not have been an
upper age of 30 years for 3 years L Lb at Lucknow University and the petitioner
should have been permitted to apply for the admission process
17.
That yet the Lucknow University has
incorrectly put this age limit in consonance of the BCI order already put on
hold by the Hon’ble AP High Court
18.
That the petitioner presented these
facts before the Vice Chancellor of the Lucknow University (VC, LU for short) through
his letter No- AT/LU/Law/04 dated 27/05/2013 praying him to remove
this age limit incorrectly introduced against the orders of the Hon’ble Andhra
Pradesh High Court. A copy of this representation
dated 27/05/2013 is being attached as Annexure No 1.
19.
That but when the admission process for 3
years and 5 years L Lb courses began and the petitioner applied for 3 years L
Lb course, the same 30 years age limit was seen though an important and
interesting fact that needs to be seen is that while this age restriction has
been put, but the University does not hesitate in taking the Rs. 850 processing
fee which they took in the petitioner’s case as well through Journal No DU 00876145 dated 29/06/2013. A copy of the online computer application form showing 30 years age limit and
the processing Fee receipt is being attached as Annexure No 2.
20.
That thus the petitioner could not fill up
his form because while he took his Class X examination in 1983 and Class XII
exam in 1985, the computer based form had only years marked 1995 onwards, which
must have been in consonance with the incorrectly imposed age limit
21.
That the
petitioner once again presented these facts before the VC, LU through his
letter dated 01/07/2013. A copy of this representation dated
01/07/2013 is being attached as Annexure No 3.
22.
That in such circumstances, there is no other Judicial forum for the
petitioner to approach to get his grievance redressed and the petitioner having
no any other efficacious alternative remedy available with him because of the
complete inaction on the part of the respondent to react to the various
representations presented by the petitioner to it, he is filing this Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following amongst other
grounds
23.
That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof in the form of
Passport have been enclosed along with
GROUNDS
(1)
Because fixing of upper age as 20 years for three years law course and as 30 years for three years law course by the Lucknow University is based on the
directions/ Rules of the Bar Council of India
(2)
Because it is Clause 28 of Schedule III
to Rules of Legal Education, 2008, issued by the Bar Council of India which
prescribes such maximum age
(3)
Because the Bar Council of India has no
power to prescribe the maximum age limit either for three years degree course
or five years degree course under the powers conferred on it by the Advocates
Act, 1961
(4)
Because the said Rules of Legal
Education have been formulated in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Bar
Council of India under Sections 7(1)(h) and (i), 24 (1) (b) (iii) and (iiia),
49(1)(af), (ag) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 but the same do not confer
any power on the Bar Council of India to prescribe the maximum age limit for
pursuing legal education.
(5)
Because this maximum age limit fixed
for law courses is illegal among other grounds because-
(a)
there is no rationale for fixing such
age limit
(b)
law is a subject where fixing any age
limit for learning the subject is improper
(c)
this upper age limit restricts a large
number of persons from studying, understanding and learning a subject like law
which shall possibly be read and understood by one and all
(d)
there is no upper age limit for
advocates to practice in the Hon’ble Courts and hence any person who studies
law at any age can practice law for many years whenever he/she starts practice
(e)
stopping any person from studying law is
cruel and inappropriate and goes against National interest because every person
who knows law properly has a higher probability of becoming a better citizen as
he has a higher possibility of adhering to law of the land
(f)
stopping any person from entering the
legal profession is equally cruel and inappropriate because a person can start
his practice at any age and become a very successful and useful lawyer, thus
contributing positively to the society
(g)
legal profession is not one that needs
lot of physical work but it is more concerned with mental faculties and brain
work, Hence even a person in somewhat advanced ages can very well work as an
efficient lawyer
(6)
Because the
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 6691/2009 Private Law Colleges vs Bar Council of India and others where the
above age limits fixed by BCI were challenged, in W.P. M.P NO 8755/2009, has already stayed operation of this Rule by
ordering- “Upon perusal of the above provisions, we are of the prima facie
opinion that the same do not confer any power on the Bar Council of India to
prescribe the maximum age limit for pursuing legal education. Accordingly, we suspend the operation of clause 28 of the said Rules.”
(7)
Because to the best of the petitioner’s knowledge this order of
the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has not been stayed, superseded,
controverted or intervened at any level, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court
(8)
Because the petitioner presented all these facts before the Vice
Chancellor of the Lucknow University through his representation dated
27/05/2013 and again through his representation dated 01/07/2013 but no action
has been taken so far
PRAYER
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to-
(a)
issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Clause 28 of Schedule III
to Legal Education Rules, 2008 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal,
arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and
in violation of the provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 and consequentially set aside
the same
(b)
issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accordingly allow
the petitioner to study 3 years law course from Lucknow University or one of
its affiliated Colleges.
Lucknow (Amitabh
Thakur)
Dated- 05/07/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34526
Dated- 05/07/2013 Petitioner in Person
# 094155-34526
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B)
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Versus
Lucknow University and others Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o
Sri T N Thakur, r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, , religion-
Hinduism, profession- Government service (IPS officer in UP Cadre), Education-
B Tech the deponent, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as under-
1. That the
deponent is the sole petitioner in the above noted petition and as such he is
fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to
hereunder.
2. That the
contents of the paragraphs 1 to 14 of the Writ petition are true to my personal
knowledge, based on documents and records and believed to be true or are based
on legal advice.
3. That all the
Annexures No 1 to 4 attached with the Writ Petition are a true
copy of their original ones
Place Lucknow (Amitabh
Thakur)
Date- /07/2013 Deponent
If upper age limit is abolished for getting admission in law college then marks restriction of 45% at graduation level should also be abolished as at this upper age person is interesting in knowledge for his office work pertains to law and not interesting is practicing in court.
ReplyDeleteI think it is the bitter experiences in life that encourage elderly people from other professions to pursue LLB course, I myself filed 16 cases in CAT (PB), when adamancy of administration kept depriving me of my legal rights. I have been winning all cases. Law is unlimited and has no bounds. Binding and restricting entrants to join LLB course on age consideration would be like putting a man in grave before he dies. Quality of education would rather improve if those having better experience become a part of fresh learning.
ReplyDeleteSir, is there any update on it?
ReplyDeleteIs'nt it a Violation of funadmantal Right to Education and Fundamental Right to Profession.
ReplyDeleteI had to leave because of this rigid rules of age I invested lot of money for buying books and had a dream in life to do LLB but this rule any one pls give latest in Gujarat also LLB to more than 30 age allowed?
ReplyDeletePlease any one if find any latest communicate to me at acharyahf@hotmail.com or reply here
ReplyDeleteBefore implementation of any new rule for getting admission to any academic course, as natural course of justice dead line needs to be given for getting admission who are likely to be adversely affected as per old rules. Please reply if anybody aware of issue of such any dead line.
ReplyDeleteBefore implementation of any new rule for getting admission to any academic course, as natural course of justice dead line needs to be given for getting admission as per old rules to those who are likely to be adversely affected. Please reply if anybody aware of issue of such any dead line.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really good post. Must admit that you are amongst the best bloggers I have read. Thanks for posting this informative article.
ReplyDeleteLegal Advice Chennai