Manjunath H C vs Karnataka State Law University on 27 August, 2012

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manjunath H C vs Karnataka State Law University on 27 August, 2012

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012

                        BEFORE:

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY

          WRIT PETITION NO.25290/2012(EDN-AD)

BETWEEN:

1.    MANJUNATH H C
      S/O CHIKKARANGAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
      NO. 27, HUTRI VILLAGE AND POST,
      HUTRI DURGA HOBLI,
      KUNIGAL TALUK,
      TUMKUR DISTRICT.            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. A R VIVEK ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY
      REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
      NAVANAGAR HUBLI-580 025

2.    VISVESWARAPURAM COLLEGE OF LAW
      REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
      K R ROAD, V V PURAM,
      BANGALORE-04

3.    BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
      REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
      NEW DELHI                   ... RESPONDENTS

                          *****

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO QUASH ANNX-D IE., ENDORSEMENT DATED
2.7.12 BEARING REF NO.353/12-13 ISSUED BY R2 IE.,
VISVESWARAPURA COLLEGE OF LAW, K.R. ROAD, V.V.
PURAM BANGALORE-560004
                                      2




     THIS  WRIT PETITION     COMING  ON  FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:-
                              ORDER

Petitioner having secured 42% in B.A. degree Examination during the academic year 2006-2007 has presented this petition calling in question the endorsement dated 2.7.2012 - Annexure-D of the second respondent - Visveswarapura College of Law declining admission to the I year LLB III Year course in view of Rule 7 of Chapter II of Rules of Legal Education 2008 framed by the Bar Council of India read with Sections 86, 34(2)(ii) and Section 49 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009, in addition, to a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent - College to admit the petitioner to III year LLB course.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is over fixing 45% as the minimum marks for the qualifying examination for admission to III year Law degree under Rule 7 of Chapter II of Rules of Legal Education 2008. 3

3. In identical circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.22151/2011 in the case of Mr.S.Ramakrishna Vs. The Bar Council of India and others by order dated 23.7.2012 held that the prescription of a minimum 45% of total marks in case of General category and 40% in the case of SC and ST in the Degree Examination for admission to III year LLB course in law degree, is in order to attain proficiency in the profession of Advocates and that the criteria cannot be said to be either arbitrary, capricious or in violation of the fundamental rights. It is further observed that the need for proficiency is the hallmark of Advocacy and the prescription of minimum percentage of marks in qualifying examinations is with a statutory purpose and accordingly rejected the plea that it militates against Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sequentially, it was further held that Articles 7(b) and 7(c) governing III year LLB course in law issued by the Karnataka State Law University is in conformity and in compliance with Rule 7 of Chapter II of Rules of Legal Education 2008 issued by the Bar Council of India and 4 accordingly, rejected the challenge to the said regulation.

4. Applying the very same principles to the facts of this case, the petitioner having secured 42% of the total marks in the qualifying B.A Degree Examination is ineligible for the law course for the year 2012-2013. Hence, disentitled to a writ of mandamus.

5. Petition devoid of merits is rejected. ` SD/-

JUDGE sh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court