P. K. Balasubramanyan, J. - (1.) The Bar Council of India challenges the judgments of the High Court of Allahabad in two Writ Petitions holding that the appointment of respondent No. 5 in these appeals as the Principal of the Dayanand College of Law was valid and within the competence of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chhatrapati Shri Sahu Ji Maharaj Kanpur University, Kanpur. Respondent No. 5 was appointed Principal of the said Law College on 11.12.1995. On an inspection, the Bar Council of India found that respondent No. 5 did not possess a qualification in law and hence withdrew its recognition to the College. At that stage, the Management of the College filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 48183 of 2000 questioning the validity of the appointment of respondent No. 5 as the Principal of the College. Meanwhile, respondent No. 5 was transferred as the Principal of Nagrik Degree College and he challenged the said order of transfer on the ground that he was competent to hold the post of Principal of the Law College and the reason for his transfer was unsustainable and that a Principal could not be transferred to another College as sought to be done. The bone of contention in the Writ Petitions was whether a person who did not possess a degree or a postgraduate degree in law and was not qualified to practise law, could be appointed as the Principal of a Law College and whether it was not essential to have a degree in law before one could be appointed as Principal of a Law College. The Bar Council of India was not a party to the Writ Petitions. The High Court took the view that going by the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, "the University Act"), such an appointment could be made notwithstanding anything contained in the Advocates Act, 1961 or in the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. The High Court proceeded on the basis that there was a conflict between the two enactments, namely, the University Act and the Advocates Act and in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, the University Act, the later State Act with the assent of the President, would prevail over the Advocates Act and since appointment to the post of a Principal of a College affiliated to a University was governed by the University Act, the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal of the Law College was liable to be upheld. It was also held that the Bar Council of India did not have any control regarding legal education. The order transferring respondent No. 5 away from the post of Principal of the Law College was consequently set aside. No notice was also issued to the Bar Council of India, the apex professional body of Advocates, before taking such a decision. However, taking note of the consequences of the decision rendered by the High Court, the Bar Council of India has filed these appeals challenging the decision of the High Court with the leave of this Court.
(2.) The appointments to Higher Educational Institutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh including Degree Colleges is done by the Higher Education Services Commission constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") and in terms of Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission (Procedure for selection of teachers) Regulations, 1983. Section 12 of the Act insists that every appointment of a teacher shall be in terms of the Act and a teacher is defined to include a Principal. Section 12(1) provides that any appointment made in contravention of the Act would be void. On the basis of the relevant Regulations framed under Section 31 of the said Act, advertisements are to be issued inviting applications for appointment of Principals to various degree colleges that had made requisitions in that behalf or had reported vacancy and on the basis of the procedure for selection, a list is to be prepared of the candidates eligible for appointment as Principals. The appointments to various Colleges are made from the said panel depending on circumstances including the preference of the candidates. Statute 11.14 provides the qualification to be possessed for the post of Principal in the colleges affiliated to the Kanpur University. Prior to 13.1.1995, Statute 11.14 (i)(b) provided that the Principal must possess "a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the college, with 7 years experience of teaching degree class". With effect from 13.1.1995, the said Statute was amended and clause (b) thereafter read, "a doctorate degree, with 7 years experience of teaching degree class". In other words, the requirement that the appointee must have a doctorate degree in one of the subjects taught in the College was done away with. Until 13.1.1995, a person could be appointed Principal of a Law College only if he possessed a doctorate degree in law or in one of the branches of law taught in that College. But after 13.1.1995, on an ordinary literal interpretation of the amended clause, a person possessing a doctorate degree in a subject wholly unrelated to law could also be appointed the Principal of a Law College. Respondent No. 5 herein, who was one among the candidates selected and included in the panel and who was appointed as Principal of the Dayanand Law College had a doctorate in Philosophy and had no degree or qualification in law.
(3.) The management initially accepted the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Principal. It is said that he was teaching Ethics and Ancient Law in the College. As noticed earlier, on an inspection made by the Bar Council of India, it came out that the Principal did not have any qualification in law. The Bar Council of India, therefore, withdrew the recognition granted to the College. This placed the students coming out of the College in jeopardy since the Bar Council of India could deny them enrolment and entry into the profession on the ground that the Institution in which they studied did not have recognition. It was then, that the management, acting through its Secretary, filed the Writ Petition praying for the issue of a writ of quo warranto, calling upon respondent No. 5 to show on what authority he was holding office. In that situation, respondent No. 5 was transferred as Principal of another College. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that he could not join that post since an interim order was passed by the High Court restraining him from taking charge as Principal of that College and this compelled him to file a writ petition questioning his very transfer. It is in that context that the High Court held that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was consistent with the University Act and since that Act prevailed over the Advocates Act and the relevant rules of the Bar Council of India, the status of respondent No. 5 could not be questioned. Based on that decision, the High Court also set aside the order transferring respondent No. 5. No doubt, it also took the view that such a transfer of Principal was not contemplated by the University Act or the Regulations thereunder.;