INTRODUCTION:
The High Court of Bombay- passed a judgement on 14 June 2023. In the case of MADHAV RAJESH VED Vs THE REGISTRAR GENERAL IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13667 OF 2023 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL, HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE, a law student has approached the court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash three notices related to the selection process for law clerks in the Bombay High Court. The petitioner, who recently graduated with an LLB degree from the Pravin Gandhi College of Law, challenges the rejection of his application based on the requirement of UGC recognition for his college. This blog post aims to analyse the legal aspects of the case and shed light on the significance of UGC recognition in the context of affiliated colleges.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioner’s application was rejected based on an advertisement issued by the Bombay High Court, inviting applications for the position of law clerks. The rejection was primarily due to the petitioner’s college, Pravin Gandhi College of Law, not being listed among the institutions whose recommendation was sought in the advertisement. The college, although affiliated to the University of Mumbai, did not have separate UGC recognition, according to the respondent’s interpretation.
THE ROLE OF UGC RECOGNITION:
The requirement of UGC recognition has emerged as a key factor in the selection process for law clerks. However, the court’s examination of the case reveals significant inconsistencies and misinterpretations surrounding the role of UGC recognition in this context.
INCONGRUITIES AND MISINTERPRETATIONS:
Firstly, the advertisement and guidelines pertaining to the selection process contained conflicting provisions regarding the requirement of UGC recognition. Guideline 3 of the advertisement specified that colleges recognized by the UGC, subject to approval by the Chief Justice, could recommend candidates. However, it failed to distinguish between universities or deemed universities and affiliated colleges. Consequently, the respondent’s insistence on UGC recognition for an affiliated college, such as Pravin Gandhi College of Law, is deemed legally untenable.
Secondly, the respondent’s argument that the UGC’s response to an email query confirmed the non-inclusion of Pravin Gandhi College of Law under Section 2(f) of the UGC Act only adds to the confusion. While the college may not have independent UGC recognition, it is undoubtedly affiliated to the University of Mumbai, which itself is recognized by the UGC. The rejection of the petitioner’s application based on UGC recognition, in this case, appears unjustified and inconsistent.
Thirdly, the alternative provision in the guidelines, allowing recommendations from Presidents of Bar Associations for candidates from unrecognized colleges, raises concerns. This provision implies that a recommendation from a Bar Association President can supersede the qualification of a law degree, thus highlighting the arbitrary nature of the selection process.
COURT’S RULING AND IMPLICATIONS:
The court carefully analysed the inconsistencies and misinterpretations surrounding the requirement of UGC recognition for affiliated colleges. It held that UGC recognition is applicable to universities or deemed universities, not to affiliated colleges. The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner’s application based on UGC recognition was unwarranted. Consequently, the court ordered the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the list of eligible candidates, subject to meeting all other eligibility criteria.
CONCLUSION:
This case sheds light on the significance of UGC recognition in the selection process for law clerks in the Bombay High Court. It emphasizes the need for clarity and precision in the formulation of guidelines and advertisements to avoid confusion and ensure fair treatment for all applicants. The court’s ruling in favour of the petitioner highlights the importance of upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that eligibility criteria are applied consistently and in accordance with the law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW
