High Court Annuls Appointment Of Panjab University's UILS Head From A Non-Legal Background For Violation Of BCI's Legal Education Rules

Observing that to be the head of legal education the person should have "minimum prescribed qualification in Law" as per UGC Regulations, The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the order of the Panjab University (PU) which appointed a Political Science professor as the head (director) of the Law department (University Institute of Legal Studies).

With this, a bench of Justice Harsh Bunger rejected the contention of the University Institute of Legal Studies (Institute) that as per the provisions of the Rotation of Headship-Teaching Departments of PU Calendar, 2019 none of the teachers is to be denied equality before the law, therefore all the professors irrespective of their subjects are entitled to be appointed as Director of law department.

Referring to Apex Court's decision in Bar Council of India v. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law [2007(2) SCC 202], the Court said, "notwithstanding the procedure to be followed under the University Act, the adherence to the requirements of the Advocates Act and the rules of the Bar Council of India is also to be ensured when concerned with the appointment of a Principal of a Law College."

The bench added further that it would be necessary for the institute to satisfy the requirements of the 2008 Rules framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) read with 2018 UGC Regulations.

Justice Bunger further said that, therefore, when concerned with the appointment of a Principal / Head of a Centre of Legal Education, there cannot be any difficulty either with the Panjab University or with the Institute recognizing the fact that a person duly qualified in law is required to be the Principal / Head of a Centre of Legal Education in the interests of the students coming out of such Centre in the light of the provisions of the Advocates' Act, 1961 and the rules framed by the Bar Council of India governing enrolment of Advocates and their practice.

So that the students coming out from their Centre of Legal Education are not put to any difficulty and their career as professionals is in no way jeopardized by their actions in appointing a Principal / Head, who does not hold the requisite eligibility in terms of 2008 Rules read with 2018 Regulations, added the judge.

These observations came in response to the petition filed by law Professor of the University, Shruti Bedi, challenging the appointment of Professor Sarabjit Kaur, a political science professor as a director of PU's law department, University Institute of Legal Studies.

As per the petitioner, in terms of the 2008 Bar Council Rules and 2018 UGC Regulations, for the post of Principal/Head/Dean of an Institute, which is a Centre of Legal Education, the requirement is that a candidate should possess PhD degree in the subject of Law and should have the total experience of at least 15 years of teaching in the concerned subject.

It was argued that therefore, the appointment of a Political Science professor is a blatant violation of the Bar Council Rules and UGC Regulations.

Considering the submissions, the Court referred to Bar Council of India v. Aparna Basu Mallick [1994(2) S.C.T. 72 : 1994 (2)] wherein the Supreme Court held, "The Universities in the country have to observe the standards of legal education prescribed by the Bar Council of India."

The Court observed that "there is no manner of doubt that Rules of Legal Education, 2008 are fully applicable to University Institute of Legal Studies (UILS)."

Therefore, Panjab University and the Institute (UILS) are expected to comply with the requirement set down by the Bar Council of India in 2008 Rules and 2018 Regulations as regards the appointment of Principal/Head of a Centre of Legal Education, is concerned, the bench said.

It was noted that the University and Institute, in order to seek extension of recognition from BCI had submitted an affidavit to the BCI, wherein it has been categorically stated that the Institution has already appointed a qualified Head of the Institution.

Thus, once a categoric declaration was given by the University as well as Institute, "then it does not lie in their mouth to turn around and say that Rule 16 read with Clause 16 of Schedule III of 2008 Rules is not applicable to the instant case or that the said provision is applicable only in respect of Dean and not in respect of Principal or Head (Director in the instant case) of UILS," observed the Court.

The Court also rejected the contention that that the position of Director of the institute is "only honorary designation." Perusing the University Rules the bench observed, "being the Head of the Institute, is not a mere honorary designation as he/she is required to perform various functions and to exercise such powers which in its very nature are aimed towards providing academic leadership to the Department, to co-ordinate teaching, research and administrative work of the department, to exercise financial powers etc."

In light of the above, the Court set aside the order of the University, appointing the Political Science professor as the director of the UILS, Panjab University.

The Court also directed the University "to initiate and complete the process of appointing the Director/Head of respondent No.4-Institute, in compliance with norms of affiliation, keeping in view the observations made here-in-above, within six weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of certified copy of this order."

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Appearance:  Sr. Advocates Dr. D.S. Patwalia, with Kannan Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

 Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4.

Sr. Advocate Rajiv Atma Ram with Advocated R.K. Hooda Sanah Sahni, Shreya Kaushik and Rahat Sekhon for respondent No.5.

Advocated Rahul Pandey and  Abhay Gupta for respondent No.6.

Advocates Dinesh Kumar and Arvind Gulav for respondents No.7 and 8.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 260

Click here to read/download the order