L MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM PRESIDENT NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS MADRAS Vs. DIRECTOR OF LEGAL STUDIES MADRAS LAW COLLEGE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of Mohan, J., dated 18th March, 1980 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, along with two other writ petitions. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the appellant claimed that he is a graduate of the University of Madras, with Economics (Main) and Politics and Indian History (subsidiary subjects) and passed his degree course in 1941 in 1947 he worked as an editorial apprentice in the Hindu, and in 1913 he joined the Mail as a sub-editor, he retired from service as Chief sub-editor in December, 1976 he was closely connected with the trade union movement among working journalists from 1954 and at present he is the President of the National Union of Journalists (India) as an office bearer of trade union working journalists he had been appearing before Industrial Tribunals and other Tribunals and Courts for nearly 25 years, as a working journalist it had become possible for him to acquire sufficient knowledge of all branches of labour legislation, and that was the reason why he wanted to do better service to the working class by acquainting himself with other branches of law and with that in mind he wanted to study the law degree coarse to enable him to practise the profession of law and appear in all Courts According to the appellant, he joined the correspondence course for B. G. L., degree conducted by the Madurai Kamaraj University in 1976-77, and passed the second, B. G. L., examination in 1978. Thereafter he applied to the Director of Legal Studies, Madras, for admission to the third year B L., degree course of the Madras Law College, for the year 1978-79. He did not receive any reply, and, when he approached the Director in person, the latter returned the application stating that he should route the application through the Madurai University, which he did immediately. Even thereafter he did not receive any reply. By that time the B. L. degree course had started in the Madras Law College and students were attending the classes, and therefore, the appellant did not pursue the matter further. Again for the next year the appellant sought admission for the third year B. L., degree course in the Madras Law college, and according to him, he approached the Registrar, University of Madras, in person and explained the position in this regard, and also gave written representations. The Registrar, University of Madras, on 2nd December, 1978, addressed a communication to the Director of Legal Studies, with a copy of the appellant stating " ". B. G. L., correspondence degree holders would not be considered for admission to the B. L., degreee course of Madras University". The appellant states that he enquired into the matter and found that there was no statutory prohibition against B. G. L., correspondence course degree-holders from seeking admission to the B. L., degree course. When be pursued the matter further, ultimately, he received a letter from the Director of Legal Studies, Madras, dated 3rd October, 1979 stating that the request of the appellant for admission to B. L., (Regular) Course could not be complied with in view of the letter of the University of Madras dated 2nd December, 1978. The letter dated 2nd December, 1978 sent by the Registrar of the University of Madras, itself stated "

(2.) IT is therefore, necessary to refer to these Rules at this stage itself. The Rules have been framed under sections 7 (1) (h) and (i), 24 (1) (c) (iii) and (iii-a) and 49 (1) (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Central Act XXV of 1961 " hereafter referred to as the Act). R. 1 (1) states "

(3.) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition the appellant contended that the Bar Council of INdia had no jurisdiction to prescribe those rules and that those rules were ultra vires the powers of the Bar Council of INdia and they were also unconstitutional as offending Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of INdia. According to the appellant there is no distinction between the B. G. L. degree of the Madurai Kamaraj University obtained after pursuing the correspondence course and that obtained after attending classes regularly and consequently there is no justification for making a distinction between the two for the purpose of admission to the B. L. degree course of the Madras University. According to the appellant once he has obtained the B. G. L. degree of the Madurai Kamaraj University, it is totally irrelevant as to how he obtained that degree whether by pursuing the correspondence course or by attending classes, since admission to the degree course is on common criteria, the degree itself is treated as common and the examination conducted for the award of the degree is also common.