Kurnool: Several students who have completed distance education courses are unable to pursue legal education due to restrictions imposed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The State Council of Higher Education (APSCHE) that failed to rectify its mistakes in the first phase of counseling is now attempting to set things right.
This year, APSCHE entrusted Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU) with the task of conducting the entrance examination but initially failed to provide crucial information on BCI guidelines. This affected the admissions for distance education students.
The state government and APSCHE failed to communicate with BCI regarding the recognition of the AP Open School Society (APOSS). The APOSS certificates had been conferred a status equivalent to the SSC examination in the state. However, BCI deemed this course worthless, leaving in the lurch the candidates and dropouts who had meticulously pursued the programme and attended contact classes. It labeled these students as being ineligible for pursuing legal education in the state.
The issue is linked to a similar case in Telangana, where a graduate who completed a distance education programme at Osmania University applied for enrollment in the bar association. The high court denied his plea, citing the BCI guidelines from 2008.
According to these guidelines, the basic qualification for both 3-year and 5-year law courses obtained through distance education channel is invalid. This rule is often interpreted by many law colleges in the state this year to mean that candidates with distance education qualifications -- ranging from SSC (10th standard) to graduation -- are ineligible for admissions, even if they have successfully cleared the entrance test.
Surprisingly, the university responsible for conducting the LAWCET, ANU, made no mention of this issue in the CET notification. It was only after the first round of counseling that APSCHE made a brief mention of the matter on their website, just ahead of the second counseling session.
Consequently, a large number of colleges refused to admit distance education students. Some were even barred from exercising web options to choose law colleges during the second counseling round. This ambiguity in the guidelines has had a direct impact on aspiring law students.
Take, for example, the case of N Narendra from Chittedu in Nellore district, who secured the 62nd rank in the LAWCET but was unable to exercise his web options due to these unclear rules. A key issue was his intermediate education completed through APOSS.
While an APSCHE senior official claimed to have sought legal advice on the matter and allocated seats to candidates, the specific methodology employed by the council in seat allocation remains undisclosed.
On the other hand, a correspondent from a law college in Anantapur and a member of the BCI asserted their refusal to admit distance education students, citing adherence to BCI guidelines that provide no room for legal education through distance learning.
In light of these complications, many deserving distance education candidates find their dreams of pursuing law studies in jeopardy.
