WRIC/31460/2025 of ANKITA TRIPATHI Vs CHHATRAPATI SAHUJI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 31460 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, Principal, Bramhanand College (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition). ii. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2, Principal, Bramhanand College to permit/appear the petitioner in studying the Law Classes regularly and also to direct to the respondent No.2 to permit/appear the petitioner in the forthcoming examination of the L.LB. Session as well as in L.LB. Viva Examination." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has taken admission prior to the coming into force of the Circular dated 24.09.2024, which mandated that all the students must declare that “they were” not engaged in any job, service or vocation, during the course of their LL.B degree unless they have obtained a valid no-objection certificate. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the declaration was given by the petitioner on 03.01.2025 in pursuance of the Circular dated 24.09.2024 and he did not disclose that he Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bijai Prakash Tiwari, Richa Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Padmaker Pandey, Rohit Pandey Ankita Tripathi .....Petitioner(s) Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University And Another .....Respondent(s) was gainfully employed since 17.11.2023. The offer letter of the petitioner is also annexed along with counter affidavit as CA-4. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that he was gainfully employed but asserts that the Circular dated 24.09.2024 is not applicable on him. 7. The perusal of the aforesaid Circular, demonstrates that the same was issued in pursuance of a judicial observation regarding the need to monitor the antecedents and background of law students; which makes it evident that all the existing law students were also required to file their undertaking. The form appended to the Circular dated 24.09.2024 also describes the said document as “Undertaking by Student”; and as such, I do not find the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner acceptable that since he has taken admission prior to 24.09.2024, therefore he was not required to give such undertaking. However, from the perusal of the Circular dated 24.09.2024 issued by the Bar Council of India, I find that no consequence has been prescribed, in case a student furnishes a detail of his employment subsequently and what recourse can be undertaken. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that in the Circular dated 24.09.2024, it has specifically been mentioned that students who fails to disclose the required antecedents, will face academic and legal consequences, including withholding of their marksheets and degrees, however, prior to doing so, what mechanism has to be followed or whether the principles of natural justice has to be adhered with, has not been provided for in the Circular. However, I find that the consequences for the institution; who fails to enforce these mandate, has only been provided. 9. In view of the aforesaid, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has subsequently furnished the details of his employment and the same is evident from the inquiry report dated 04.08.2025 and as such, taking a lenient view in the matter he may be permitted to continue his studies. 10. I find hat the respondents have already given the show cause notice WRIC No. 31460 of 2025 2 and also that certain clarification may also be required from the Bar Council of India, therefore in the fitness of things, this court permits the petitioner to furnish his supplementary reply within a period of three weeks from today in response to the impugned show cause notice; and in case the petitioner furnishes a detailed reply, it is expected from the respondent no.2 to take a compassionate view in the matter and also before proceeding further, a clarification shall also sought from the Bar Council of India regarding the Circular dated 24.09.2024, in case it is found that subsequently, the appropriate undertaking has been given and there is adherence to Rule 12 of the Rules of Legal Education. 11. In case such a clarification is sought, it is expected from the Bar Council of India to issue a detailed guidelines prescribing the procedure which should adhere to the principles of natural justice, before any consequences follows, in case there is a false declaration or the students have failed to give an undertaking as desired by the Circular dated 24.09.2024. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within a period of eight weeks from today. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. April 2, 2026 Sumit K. WRIC No. 31460 of 2025 3 (Siddharth Nandan,J.)