https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298897 Appointments to the principalship of a law college must satisfy both the university selection framework and the professional standards under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules. The SC held that these regimes are to be harmonised, so the State or university process cannot produce an appointment inconsistent with the requirements governing legal education and enrolment in the legal profession. A person lacking the necessary legal qualifications could not validly be appointed as Principal of a law college. The Court also rejected the view that Article 254(2) allowed the State law to displace the Advocates Act, holding instead that there was no true conflict requiring that result. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Nov 2021 14:14:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298897 Appointments to the principalship of a law college must satisfy both the university selection framework and the professional standards under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules. The SC held that these regimes are to be harmonised, so the State or university process cannot produce an appointment inconsistent with the requirements governing legal education and enrolment in the legal profession. A person lacking the necessary legal qualifications could not validly be appointed as Principal of a law college. The Court also rejected the view that Article 254(2) allowed the State law to displace the Advocates Act, holding instead that there was no true conflict requiring that result. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298897