Insistence on ML degree, advocate enrolment for appointment as Asst Professor for pre-law courses in Govt Law Colleges illegal: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on Thursday held that notifications mandating that candidates must have enrolled as advocate and possess a master's degree in law (ML degree) to be qualified for appointment as Assistant Professors for pre-Law courses in Government law colleges are irrational and illegal ( V Lekha v. The Chairman, UGC ).

. A Bench of Justices V Parthiban and N Kirubakaran found that the insistence on such pre-qualifications to be eligible for appointment may even be counter-productive to ensuring that education in pre-law courses are properly taught.

. "With the additional qualifications, particularly regular ML degree and enrollment as advocate, unlike the core postgraduate degrees in the relevant subject, the focus of teaching is forced to gravitate towards law from the pre-law level, thus defeating the very concept of the integrated legal programme formulated by the academia," the Court pointed out.

. When candidates are to be appointed to teach pre-law courses, the emphasis should be on whether the teacher for a particular non-law subject is intellectually equipped to handle classes for that particular subject of specialisation. Requiring more qualifications, other than qualification in that particular pre-law subject, may dilute the quality of teachers recruited, it was noted.

. "Requiring more qualifications, not connected to to the main qualification in the finer discharge of duties, the teacher concerned would inevitably be a person of mediocre knowledge of not excelling in the relevant subject or in law, either," the order said.

. The Court added that it was perplexed and at loss to understand how the candidate's enrolment as an advocate would be of any use to the duties of an Assistant Professor.

. "How far enrollment as advocate is going to be of any academic use in the discharge of duties by the Assistant Professor, is a conundrum, as no definite or plausible answers are to be found. In fact, from the entirety of arguments by the learned counsels, this aspect has not been addressed at all. Hence, the enrollment as advocate whether could bring any value addition to the pre-law teacher is a knotty question and till the conclusion of the argument, the question remained conspicuously unanswered," the Court said.

. It was also pointed out that if candidates are made to enrol as advocates, there is a good chance that the candidate may lean towards joining legal practice instead of focusing solely on teaching. Explaining how it would be better if teachers are left to only pursue academia, instead of mandating that they enrol as well, the Court said:

" The possession of law degree and enrollment at the Bar would invariably act as a catalyst and inducement for the teacher of pre-law to leave the job of teaching anytime, he/she chooses to leave as per his/her convenience. This contingency cannot be ruled out at all, in practical times of today's context. On the other hand, if a candidate with only post graduate qualification in the relevant subject, which means the same subject, both at the under graduate and post graduate levels, such candidate unalloyed focus could only be on the subject of his teaching. When a candidate tied to the teaching, he/she is bound to make a qualitative difference in the long run. The teachers with a specialized degree without the law degree, would be fully focused into teaching and probably, research too benefiting the students. If the standards of the legal education is to be protected or improved, the quality of the dedicated teachers is a sine qua non for its betterment."

. The Court also found that the prescription of ML degree and enrolment as pre-qualifications to be appointed as Assistant Professors of pre-law courses were in conflict with the minimum standards laid down by the Bar Council of India (BCI) in its Legal Education Rules of 2008.

. The Court, therefore, ruled that 2014 and 2018 notifications mandating such prescription amounted to colourable legislation, were suffering from lack of legislative competence (on the part of the State), were irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and could not pass Constitutional scrutiny.

. The Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions on the issue. The major challenge was towards a notification issued in July 2018 by the Teachers Recruitment Board for the recruitment of Assistant Professors (Pre Law) in Government Law Colleges in Tamil Nadu for the year 2017-18.

. The said notification stated that candidates would be eligible for the post only if they had a Masters Degree in law with not less than 55% of marks and if they had enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council. A similar notification was also issued in 2014.

. These qualifications were prescribed apart from the main qualifications i.e., Post Graduation Degree in the concerned subject from the Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu with not less than 55% of marks and passing the National Eligibility Test (NET).

. Apart from holding that the additional prescription of ML degree and advocate enrolment were illegal, the Court on Thursday also clarified that obtaining a Post Graduate degree through distance mode would not be sufficient to qualify for the post of Assistant Professor in terms of the notification.

. " In fact, invariably such (distance) degrees are earned only for the purpose of furthering their job prospects in the employment market. Such degree holders, principally look upon the appointment as a job opportunity as they go about discharging their duties perfunctorily with little passion towards achieving academic excellence ... Thus the postgraduate degree obtained through distance education mode or through correspondence may not be valid enough for appointment as faculty in the pre law courses, " the Court said.

. Further, the Court highlighted that the Post-Graduate degree has to be in the same subject pursued by the candidate at the Under-Graduate level . In other words, a candidate having "cross degree" would not validly qualify for the post, the Court held.

. " When the Notification prescribed postgraduate degree in the relevant subject as the minimum qualification, it is to be implicitly understood that the undergraduate degree should also be in the same subject as that of the postgraduate degree ... This Court simply cannot comprehend the quality of the teacher if he/she has two degrees in two different subjects and get appointed as Assistant Professors for taking classes in major subjects like Economics, Commerce, Technology, Business Administration, etc, " stated the order.

. The Court, however, added that any appointments already made pursuant to the 2014 and 2018 notifications would not be affected by the ruling.

. On a parting note, the State was also asked to revisit the entire eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor and other posts in the teaching faculty in respect of the Government Law Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu

. "The State authorities are directed to conform to the minimum standards fixed by the BCI and expedite the process of recruitment, in order to avoid any academic dislocation," the Court ordered.

. [Read Order]

Insistence on ML degree, advocate enrolment for appointment as Asst Professor for pre-law courses in Govt Law Colleges illegal: Madras High Court

Meera Emmanuel

Related Stories