IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.872 of 2009 1. The V.C.,Patna University, Patna(respondent No. 4 in the writ petition). 2. The Chancellor-cum-Governor of Bihar, Patna(respondent No. 2 in the writ petition). 3. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna(respondent No. 5 in the writ petition). Versus 1. Bharat Kumar son of late Bipin Bihari Lal, resident of Balughat, Police Station Sultanganj, District Patna. 2. Radha Rahman Roy son of Sri Yugal Bihari Yadav resident of Driyapur, Gola(Dabi Gali), Police Station Kadam Kuan, District Patna. 3. Awadhesh Kumar son of Sri Badari sah, residne tof Raghopur, Police Station Juruwanpur, District Vaishali. 4. Chandra Kant Sharma son of Shri Sidheshwar Sharma resident of Pachlowa, police Station Islampur, Dist Nalanda. 5. Ranjan Kumar son of late Jagdish Prasad Sinha, resident of Sector ‘o’ Sachivalay colony, Kankar bagah, Police Station Patrakar Nagar, District Patna. 6. Quaisar Alam son of Md. Quasim, resident of House No. 35, Road No. 6 Nagmatia Colony, Police Station Sadat Gaya, Dist-Gaya. 7. Prabhat Kumar son of late Girish Kumar, resident of S/380 Lohia nagar, Police Station Kaknkarbagh, District Patna. (1 to 7 are petitioners in the writ petition) . 8. The State of Bihar (respondent No. 1 in the writ petition). 9. The commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Department(Higher Education) New Secretariat, patna.(Respondent No. 3 in the writ petition). 10. The Principal, Patna Law College, Patna.(respondent No. 6 in the writ petition). 11. Bar Council of India, through its Secretary. 12. Rouso Avenue Industrial Area, new Delhi-110002(respondent No. 7 in the writ petition) For the Appellants :-Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. A.C to G.A2 For the Respondents:-Mrs. Kanak Verma, Adv. ----------- 6 19.07.2011 The present L.P.A arises out of the order dated 15.04.2009 passed in C.W.J.C No. 1519 of 2009. The petitioners-respondents herein being the practicing Advocates and part-time lecturers of the Patna University. They were aggrieved by not considering their cases in pursuance to the notification issued by the 2 Patna University for appointment of full time lecturer in Patna Law College on 14 sanctioned posts. The advertisement was published on 6.1.2009 on the ground that as per the Bar Council of India Rules part time lawyers who were practicing for a period of ten years ought to be considered for a post of full time lecturer. It is also their case that they were already working since so many years in the Patna University as a part time lecturer and by virtue of notification they remained as part time lecturer because of the fact that University has not taken into consideration the rules as incorporated under the Bar Council of India Rules which requires that an Advocate who practiced continuously for ten years could be also considered for the post of part time lecturers . Before the learned Single Judge the petitioner has relied upon the reported judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (Bar Council of India Vrs. Board of Management, Dayanand College of Law & Ors.) reported in 2007 (2) SCC 202 wherein the Apex Court has directed the University to follow the Rules as incorporated under the Bar Council of India Act and also the Advocates Act. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and considering the material on record has come to the conclusion that the Patna University has not considered the guidelines as indicated by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) and directed the University to reconsider and recast the statute within two weeks from the date of production/communication of a copy of the order. It is also made clear in the said judgment that the appointment process shall not proceed on the basis of the impugned advertisement dated 6.1.2009 for which the present appeal has been filed. 3 It is contended by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the University that even though the statute has been amended, the petitioners-respondents herein have no right whatsoever to seek a direction upon the University to recast the statutes. It has also been contended that the time granted by the learned Single Judge is of very short duration vis- a- vis the University is not in a position to take a decision or to re-consider or re-cast the statute in such a short time. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein has also brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the Bar Council of India Rules provides three years law course of graduation in Section B of Part 4 which prescribes qualification for part time lecturers. For part time teaching LLM is required for appointment of teachers in Law Colleges. The qualifications prescribed for the appointment of full time lecturer including the Principle of Law shall be a part time teacher who shall have the minimum practice of ten years in the Bar. In view of the above provisions learned counsel for the respondents argued that the notification is silent with regard to the above provisions and as the respondents are all part time teachers teaching in Patna Law Colleges their cases are not considered. It is further contended that they are not eligible to apply as such qualification is not incorporated in the notification issued by the University. Clause-8 of Section-B deals with three years law course after graduation and it indicates that for the appointment of full time teachers one of the qualification shall be as part time teaching experience other than LLM degree which includes minimum degree of ten years experience at the Bar. 4 We are of the opinion that the Advocates/petitioners who has minimum practice of ten years at the Bar and they are already a part time teachers, the benefit of such course of full time teachers must be provided to them as per the conditions laid down by the Bar Council of India Rules in case of selection of full time lecturers. We see some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent as the Patna University has not followed the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of India (Supra). We are of the opinion that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge should not be interfered with in the peculiar circumstances of the case and hence, we feel that the time granted by the learned Single Judge i.e., of two weeks ‘seems to be very short duration for the University to take a decision. Taking note of the same we extend six months time for the University to re consider the entire issue in view of the law laid down by the Apex Courtin the case of Bar Council of India (supra) in accordance with law. We also deem it proper to continue the stay granted by the learned Single Judge till the decision is taken by the University. With the above modification in the order of the learned single Judge the LPA stands disposed off. Prakash/Pravin (T.Meena Kumari, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)