DHAMANI RAMESH HOLARAM Vs. SAURASHTRA UNIVERSITY THRO REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by thee petitioner under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of Saurashtra University Act and the provisions of the Advocates Act and the rules made thereunder for the prayers, inter alia, that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing respondents Nos. 1 -2 to enroll the petitioner in the faculty of law and permit the petitioner to pursue 3 - year LL.B course for enrollment as an advocate, on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Shri Nirav Sanghvi appearing for learned advocate Shri Pawan Barot and learned advocate Shri A.R. Thacker appearing with learned advocate Shri Shivang Thacker for respondents Nos. 1 and learned advocate Shri RC Jani for respondent No. 3.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Shri Sanghvi referred to the papers and tried to submit that the petitioner has secured 48% marks and he pointedly referred to the affidavit filled on behalf of the Bar Council to emphasise that there is no rule or notification denying admission to a student who has passed the graduation course with more trials. He submitted that if the petitioner has secured the minimum required percentage of marks irrespective of the trials or attempts he should not be denied admission as the requirement is fulfilled. He submitted that the petitioner has appeared in the exam and had got exemption in a few subjects and thereafter again he appeared and ultimately cleared the 3rd year B.Com. course and he cannot be denied admission for the 3 -year law degree course. He has also tried to submit that the petitioner is possessed of the qualification for doing 3 -years law degree course and therefore the impugned decision is erroneous.