ORDER
B.J. Shethna, J.
1. Petitioner-Laxminarayan is present in person. He insisted that he may be heard and the matter be decided by the Court in view of the fact that he has been denied to practise as a lawyer by the impugned order dated 16-11-96 (Annexure-1) passed by the Bar Council of India and because of that he is literally starving.
Though served none has put up his appearance for the respondent No. 1-Bar Council of India. Mr. R.P. Malik, Senior Office Assistant of Bar Council of Rajasthan is present in person. No one was present for the respondent No. 3-University.
2. On 6-3-98 this Court (P.P. Navlekar) ordered to issue notice in this petition as to why this writ petition may not be disposed of at the admission stage itself. Except by the respondent No. 3, University, no reply is filed either by the Bar Council of India or by the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
3. The impugned order at Annexure-1 came to be passed by the Bar Council of India on a reference made under Section 26( 1) of the Advocates Act by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. It was held that the petitioner cannot continue as an Advocate and his enrolment deserves to be cancelled since his enrolment was obtained by misrepresentation.
4. Petitioner-Laxminarayan vehemently submitted that he was appointed as Law Officer of the respondent-University by an Order dated 25-1-95 (25-1-85). He was initially appointed as Class IV employee in the erstwhile Jodhpur University which is now named as Jai Narain Vyas University-Respondent No. 3. During the service he passed LL.B. Examinations from the respondent-University in 1976. He was promoted from time to time on different posts and ultimately appointed as Law Officer by an order dated 24-8-1984 (Annexure-3). He was assisting University Advocates in legal matters before the High Court as well as the Supreme Court. He applied for the enrolment as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Rajasthan but his application was rejected on 25-5-1985 (Annexure-4). Later on, the Registrar of the University issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner for his enrolment as an Advocate (Annexure-5). On the basis of the said certificate he once again applied for enrolment before the Bar Council of Rajasthan and after due enquiry he was enrolled as an Advocate in 1988. His enrolment was challenged by one Shri H.K. Purohit before the Civil Court, Jodhpur wherein Bar Council of Rajasthan and the University were the defendants. Reply was filed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan (Annexure-7). The injunction was refused by the Trial Court against which the appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. Revision was also dismissedby this Court against the said orders. Later on, the suit itself was withdrawn. Thereafter, it was challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition which was also disposed of by an order at Annexure-8 with a direction to the Bar Council of Rajasthan to decide the representation. The Bar Council of Rajasthan upheld the enrolment of the petitioner by the order at Annexure-9. Thereafter, on a complaint, the Bar Council of Rajasthan referred the matter to the Bar Council of India and ultimately the Bar Council of India by the impugned order at Annexure-1 held that the petitioner cannot continue as an Advocate and cancelled his enrolment.
5. Petitioner Shri Laxminarayan vehemently submitted that the Bar Council of India was wrong in passing the impugned order at Annex-ure-1 cancelling the enrolment of the petitioner as an Advocate. He submitted that way back on 25-1-95 (25-1-85) the Registrar of the University passed the order in writing appointing him as Law Officer. The correctness of that order was not even questioned by the University. He, therefore, submitted that the subsequent letter dated 14-5-94 addressed by the Registrar of the University stating that he was Junior Accountant and no post of Law Officer existed in the University cannot be relied upon. He submitted that some persons were inimical to him and they were trying to harass him, when they fail at all level then such a false letter was issued by the Registrar of the University on 14-5-94. He submitted that the burden was very much with the University to prove that its earlier order dated 25-1 -1985 was forged one or that they had never issued such order dated 25-1-1985 appointing him as a Law Officer. The said appointment order appointing him as a Law Officer was very much there on the record, therefore, nothing more was required to be produced by the petitioner before the Bar Council of India. Still, the Bar Council of India held that the applicant was not able to produce any document showing that the post of Law Officer was created in the University or the existence of such post in the University.
6. There is lot of force in this submission raised by the petitioner Shri Laxminarayan. It may be stated that the stand of Bar Council of Rajasthan throughout was in favour of the petitioner. In a suit filed by one Mr. Purohit, also theBar Council of Rajasthan supported the petitioner in view of the earlier order passed by the University appointing the petitioner as a Law Officer. It clearly appears that some persons were against the petitioner, therefore, they were out to harass the petitioner by making false complaints before the Bar Council of Rajasthan. It is unfortunate that the Bar Council of India accepted the reference made against the petitioner and held that he cannot be continued as an Advocate and cancelled his enrolment on the ground of misrepresentation. From the record of the case it is clear that there was no misrepresentation at all. When there was a valid order appointing the petitioner as Law Officer passed way back in 1985 then the subsequent letter of the University issued in 1994 would not make his appointment as Law Officer in the University illegal. Bar Council of India was wholly wrong in throwing the burden on the shoulder of the petitioner. When the University came out with the case in 1994 that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Accountant and not as a Law Officer then the burden was on the University to show that he was never appointed as Law Officer in 1985 and order dated 24-8-1984 appointing him as Law Officer was forged one and concocted by the petitioner. 7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16-11-1996 at Annexure-1 passed by the Bar Council of India is hereby quashed and consequently notification dated 3-6-1987 issued by the Bar Council of Rajasthan is also hereby quashed and set aside and it is declared that the petitioner-Laxminarayan son of Shri Roop Singhji Gehlot was rightly enrolled as an Advocate of Bar Council of Rajasthan and is entitled to practise as such. However, there shall be no order as to costs.