(1.) The Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh has refused to enroll the petitioner as an Advocate on its rolls. Aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed this decision of the Bar Council in the instant petition.
(2.) Background Facts 2(i) The petitioner took admission in the three years LL.B degree in respondent No.2-college in June 2014. He appeared in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes LL.B First Semester regular examination held in November 2014. Result of First Semester was declared on 9/4/2015. At the time of taking admission in the LLB course, the petitioner had not passed his B.A. degree. The result-cum-detailed marks certificate of B.A. 3rd year examination held in March 2015 was issued to the petitioner on 27/7/2015.
(3.) Contentions 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had taken admission in respondent No.2-college in LL.B three years degree course bonafidely. He had not concealed any material fact from respondent No.2-college at the time of taking admission. Respondent No.2 had been made aware of the fact that the petitioner had not completed his bachelor's degree. Respondent No.2-college still admitted the petitioner to the three years LL.B degree in June 2014, whereafter, the LL.B degree course was pursued by the petitioner for three years. On completion of the course and award of the LL.B certificate to the petitioner, respondent No.4 was bound to honour the same and enroll him as an Advocate. Decision of the Enrollment Committee of respondent No.4 and also of the Bar Council of H.P. (respondent No.4) dtd. 17/3/2023, in refusing to enroll the petitioner as an Advocate on its rolls was illegal. Reliance in support of these submissions was placed upon A Sudha Vs. University of Mysore and another,2 Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another3 and upon judgment rendered in P. Raji Vs. The Secretary 4 alongwith connected matters decided by the Hon'ble Madras High Court.