Karnataka High Court
Yuvaraj S/O Jadeyappa K vs The Karnataka State Law University on 11 June, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 105810 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 105249 OF 2024
IN W.P. NO. 105810/2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
YUVARAJ S/O. JADEYAPPA K.,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
R/O. BYLUVADDIGERE VILLAGE,
TALUKA: HOSAPETE, DISTRICT: BELLARY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAIKIRAN B. NAIK AND
SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY,
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI
2. THE PRINCIPAL
Location: HIGH SHRIYA PRIYA LAW COLLEGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA DADEGAL VILLAGE, KOPPAL,
DHARWAD
BENCH DISTRICT: KOPPAL-583238.
3. KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARIAT TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
1ST GATE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. ARCHANA MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R4 & R5; R2-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
UNIVERSITY, THEREBY REJECTING TO ISSUE ELIGIBILITY
CERTIFICATE AND NOT PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE
LLB, VIDE ANNEXURE-F REF NO.LW002S240001062 DATED
21/09/2024 CONSEQUENTIALLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-
UNIVERSITY TO ISSUE ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO.105249/2024 (EDN-AD)
BETWEEN:
SHRI JAVED S/O. ANJUM MULLANI,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KHARADEGALLI, NIPPANI,
TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROHIT NAGESH LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
21, ROUSE AVENUE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NEAR BAL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110002.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
SUTAGATTI ROAD, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.
4. THE ASGSS MAHATMA GANDHI LAW COLLEGE,
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL,
ANANT VIDHYA NAGAR, NH4 SANKESHWAR,
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591313.
5. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LAW DEPARTMENT, GROUND FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001,
6. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
2ND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-1.
7. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARIAT TO GOVT.,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS, 1ST GATE, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. ARCHANA MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R5-R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
I) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION THEREBY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE EDUCATIONAL
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PETITIONER AND THEREBY
DECLARE HIM ELIGIBLE FOR THE ADMISSION TO 3 YEAR
L.L.B LAW COURSE UNDER THE KSLU UNIVERSITY R.NO.3
VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO ANNEXURE-F.
II) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER
WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT
ADMISSION TO THE PETITIONER TO 3 YEAR L.L.B LAW
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
COURSE FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-25 IN THE LAW
COLLEGE OF R.NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-K TO ANNEXURE-L.
III) A FURTHER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY
OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO
GRANT THE PETITIONER SANADH/CERTIFICATE OF
PRACTICE ON HIS SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF LAW
COURSE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF R.NO.3 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, who are students are aggrieved by denial of admission to the three years LL.B Course in the respective colleges coming under the Karnataka State Law University ('KSLU' for short), have knocked the doors of this Court to permit them to pursue the three years LL.B course. Hence, these writ petitions.
2. The petitioner/Sri Yuvaraj in WP No.105810/2024 has sought for the following reliefs:
Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other Writ or direction and quash the Endorsement issued by the Respondent University, thereby rejecting to issue eligibility -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR certificate and not permitting the petitioner to pursue LLB, vide Annexure-F Ref. NO.LW002S240001062 dated 21/09/2024, consequently, direct the Respondent- University to issue eligibility certificate, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The petitioner/Sri Javed in WP 105249/2024 has sought for the following reliefs:
A Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the Respondents to consider the educational qualifications of the petitioner and thereby declare him eligible for the admission to 3 year LLB law course under the KSLU university R.No.3 vide Annexure-A to Annexure-F;
A Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondents to grant admission to the petitioner to 3 year LLB law course for the academic year 2024-25 in the law college of R.No.4 vide Annexure K to Annexure L;
A further Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondent No.2 to grant the petitioner sanadh/certificate of -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR practice on his successful completion of law course from the university of R.No.3.
4. The grievance of the petitioners in both these writ petitions, is one and the same i.e., they have been denied admission to the three years LL.B Course in the respective colleges coming under the KSLU.
5. In the case of petitioner/Yuvaraj, respondents/KSLU and Shiva Priya Law College denied admission to three years LL.B Course on the ground that the I.T.I. Course possessed by him is not equivalent to PUC since certain essential requirements /conditions are not fulfilled.
6. In the case of petitioner/Sri Javed, the respondents/KSLU and ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law College denied admission to three years LL.B Course on the ground that he did not possess 10 + 2 matriculation documents or other equivalent educational qualification and that the educational qualification secured by him from -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University ('YCMOU' for short), Nashik is not a valid educational qualification to grant him admission to the said law college coming under the KSLU.
7. As both these petitions involve common question of law, these Petitions are taken up together for disposal with consent of all parties.
(i) Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.105249/2024
8. The petitioner/Javed passed a pre-preparatory test to secure admission to the degree course in the YCMOU, Nashik which is a preparatory course to take admission to degree course in the open university of YCMOU for those students who do not possess 10 + 2 matriculation or other equivalent educational qualification and he secured 50% marks in the said preparatory/PPT test conducted by YCMOU, Nashik, on 8.6.2006. On successful completion of the said preparatory program, Javed enrolled for Bachelor's degree in Arts (B.A.) in English from YCMOU, -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Nashik. Javed secured admission to the 1st year B.A. Course in the year 2014; completed the 2nd year B.A. in December 2023; and the 3rd year BA in May-June 2024.
8.1 After petitioner/Javed completed the B.A. degree through Open University, he wanted to pursue his career in law for graduation in law and therefore he approached the 4th respondent - ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law college, which is affiliated to KSLU. Upon approaching the college, initially petitioner was directed to approach the KSLU, whereby KSLU and the college denied him admission to three years' LL.B Course as he did not possess 10+2 matriculation documents or other equivalent educational qualification and that the educational qualification pursued by him from the YCMOU is not a valid educational qualification to secure admission to the said law course in 4th respondent - college coming under the KSLU.
8.2 Aggrieved by the act of the college and the KSLU rejecting him admission to the three years' LL.B course, Javed is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR a direction to the respondent college as well as the University to consider his educational qualification and thereby, declare him eligible for admission to the three years' LL.B Course under KSLU and consequently to grant him admission in the respondent No.4 college coming under KSLU. He has also sought for a direction to the Karnataka State Bar Council to grant him Sanad/certificate of practice on his successful completion of the law course from the KSLU. Well this prayer would arise if he secures admission and completes the 3 year LL.B course.
(ii) Brief facts of the case in W.P. No.105810/2024
9. In the present case, the petitioner - Yuvaraj has completed SSLC from Government High School, Chittavadagi, Hosapete in the year 2012. Thereafter, he pursued two years ITI Course from the Vishweshwaraiya Private ITI, Hosapete, Bellary in the year 2014. Thereafter, Yuvaraj opted to study three years B.A. degree from Vijayanagara Sri Krishnadevaraja University, Bellary,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR which he completed in the year 2022. Thereafter with an intent to pursue three years' LLB course, he applied to respondent No.2 - Shiva Priya Law College, Koppal in Karnataka for admission to three years' Law Course. However, on receipt of his application, which was eventually sent to KSLU, the same came to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner - Yuvaraj did not fulfil certain conditions as required by the college and University regulations.
10. I have heard Sri Saikiran B Naik and Sri Shiva Shirur, learned counsels for petitioner in W.P. No.105810/24 ; Sri Rohit N Latur, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P. No.105249/24 as well as learned counsel
- Sri. Rajashekhar Burji on behalf of BCI, Sri Pavan B Doddatti for KSLU; learned counsel - Sri Archana Magadum for Karnataka State Bar Council; learned counsel - J.M. Gangadhar, learned AAG a/w Sri Praveen Uppar, AGA and Sri. P.N. Hatti, HCGP for State so also
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR learned counsel - Sri Chetan T Limibikai for respondent No.4 college in W.P. No.105249/2024.
(iii) Arguments advanced by learned counsel - Sri Rohit N. Latur for petitioner/Javed in W.P. No.105249/2024
11. It is the vehement contention of leaned counsel
- Sri Rohit N. Latur that petitioner/Sri Javed completed his regular schooling through Maharashtra State Board School and thereafter he failed in 10th Standard, due to which, he opted to complete 10th standard and PUC through Open University at YCMOU, Nashik and thereby he completed his preparatory program which is equivalent to 10+2 as per notification issued by Government of Maharashtra. It is also contended that UGC has given recognition to the courses which are being conducted by YCMOU, Nashik.
11.1 Learned counsel further contends that after successful completion of the schooling and pre-preparatory programme of 10+2 through open university, the petitioner - Javed completed B.A. English degree in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR YCMOU, Nashik and thereafter he applied for admission to the three years LL.B course in the respondent No.4 - ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law College, affiliated to the KSLU, which denied the admission to the three years LL.B course and the same is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the regulations of the Bar council of India ('BCI' for short) 11.2 Learned counsel further contends that Rule - 5 of the Bar council of India Rules was subject matter of interpretation before the three judge Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Vishnu .v. BCI and others in W.P. No.6752/2021 decided on 4.5.2022, wherein the Bombay High Court discussed the following points:
i) Whether the preparatory course under clause 4.1 (1) of YCMOU, Nashik could be treated as equivalent to HSC ?
ii) Whether acquiring the B.Com degree under distant learning programme of the YCMOU, Nashik on the basis of preparatory programme of six months could tantamount to a candidate having acquired 10+2+3 sequential educational qualification so as to
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR be eligible for acquiring admission to three years LL.B degree course ?
11.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to paragraphs 25 and 26 of the said judgment, which read as under:
"25. The aspect of basic qualification appearing in explanation would differ from University to University and course to course. The basic qualification for first degree course in an Open University would be the preparatory course and/or 12th Standard passed. The basic qualification as is appearing in explanation will have to be given a wider interpretation and cannot be given a restricted interpretation. If restricted interpretation is given to the words "basic qualification" appearing in explanation, then the same would not be in tune and consonance with the main rule. A person who has completed the preparatory programme course from Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik and who has also completed 10 + 2 from any Board, is eligible for admission to the first degree course in branch of Arts, Commerce, Science. If the restrictive meaning is given to the basic qualification, then
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR a student who has passed graduation from the open University and had earlier completed 10 + 2 from S.S.C. Board would be eligible for admission to the three year law course, but a person who has been admitted to the first degree course in the open University after passing the preparatory programme for the said course, would not be eligible. The same cannot be the intention of the legislature.
26. If such a restricted meaning is given to the words "basic qualification", the very purpose of proviso would stand frustrated. Proviso has clarified that an applicant who has passed the first degree certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method, shall also be considered as eligible for admission. The explanation cannot be interpreted in a manner it would negate the proviso and the main section. The explanation cannot take away the statutory right with which a person is bestowed with under the rule. For explanation to harmoniously survive with the proviso and the main rule will have to be interpreted in a manner that the basic qualification would mean the basic qualification as provided by that University for obtaining admission to the graduation/ postgraduation or 10 + 2 course. Any other
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR interpretation would lead to an anomalous situation and would render the Rule 5 and the proviso otiose and superfluous."
11.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Harish .N -vs- BCI and others in Writ Appeal No.5142/2016 and connected matters, wherein at paragraphs 12 and 13 it is held as under:
12. The reasons assigned by the Law University in disapproving the admission of the appellants are tabulated hereunder:
Sl. Reasons for
No W.A.No/s. Name & Qualification not
course approving
admission
1. WA HARISH.N. Upto 10th +2 private
No.5142/2016 Standard- study/ Open
& WAs Regular schooling
3 year LL.B
No.921-
School
923/2017
II PUC - as
a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
student in
the
Bangalore
University
2. WA MURALI.A. Upto 10th +2 private
No.5143/2016 Standard- study/ Open
& WAs Regular schooling
No.1060- 3 year LL.B School
62/2017
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
student in
the
Bangalore
University
3. WAs No.4303- RAGHAVENDR Upto 10th +2
05/2017 & A Standard- private/10th/
WAs No.4318- Regular 12th Degree
3 year LL.B All Open
20/2017 School
schooling
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a
regular
student in
the
Mangalore
University
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
AKSHATH Upto 10th +2
KUMAR Standard- private/10th/
Regular 12th Degree
3 year LL.B All Open
School
schooling
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
student in
the
Mangalore
University
SHABA Upto 10th +2
Standard- private/10th/
Regular 12th Degree
All Open
3 year LL.B School
schooling
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
student in
the
Mangalore
University
4. WAs No.790- TARUNESH Upto 10th +2 private
794/2017 & Standard-
WAs No. 795- Regular
799/2017 5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
student
VISHNU Upto 10th +2 private
DALMIA Standard-
Regular
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
In a open
schooling
KUMARI Upto 10th
KAVYA Standard-
Regular +2 private
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
GAUTHAM Upto 10th
KISHAN H Standard-
Regular +2 private
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
MOHAMMAD Upto 10th +2 private
ANWAR Standard-
Regular
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
ANANTHA Upto 10th +2 private
PADMANABHA Standard-
Regular
5 year LL.B School
II PUC -
as a private
student
KUMARI Upto 10TH +2 private
SAHANA Standard-
SHENOY.K. Regular
School
5 year LL.B
II PUC -
as a private
student
MARIAM Upto 10th +2 private
FARISA Standard-
ABDHULLA Regular
School
5 year LL.B
II PUC -
as a private
student
5. WA RAVI.S. Upto 10th +2 private
No.4301/2017 Standard- study
3 year LL.B Regular
School
II PUC -
as a private
student
Graduation
-
as a regular
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
student in
the
Bangalore
University
6. WA MS.SHAILIKA Upto 10th +2 private
No.4306/2017 Standard-
& WAs Regular
No.4316- 5 year LL.B School
4317/2017
II PUC -
as a private
student
7. WAs No.5168- BHUVANESWA Upto 11th PUC studied
69/2016 RI Standard- at NIOS &
Regular there is no
5 YEAR proof of 2
School
INTEGRATED years study
LL.B. 12TH at +2 level
Standard
Open
schooling
RATNESH Upto 9th +2 through
KUMAR Standard- open
GAUTAM Regular schooling
School
5 YEAR
INTEGRATED 10th
LL.B. Standard-
Open
schooling
11th
Standard-
regular
student
In NIOS
12th
Standard-
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551
WP No. 105810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024
HC-KAR
open
schooling
13. Analysis of the qualifications of the appellants shows that they have appeared as private th candidates either in their 10 , '+2' or 'first graduation' examination. It is relevant to record that, the appellants have attended classes in the School and appeared for the 10th, '+2' or 'first graduation' examination as private candidates or through open schooling method. Therefore, they cannot be classified as applicants, who have obtained their respective '+2' or 'graduation/post graduation' qualification directly, without having any basic qualification. The resultant position is that, the applicants' cases would fall within the 'proviso' to Rule 5 of BCI Rules and the 'Explanation' shall have no application. Consequently, they shall be entitled to pursue their 3 year or 5 year Law courses."
11.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of N.B. Bhargavi & others .vs. KSLU & others in W.P.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Nos.56941-56946/2014, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court observed at paragraphs 19 and 23 as under:
"19. In the light of the said judgment, the explanation has to be given effect to, as a whole to make it consistent with the dominant object of the Rules in order to make it meaningful and purposeful. The language employed indicates the object and intent of the explanation. If the intention of the rule makers was to prohibit the applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/post-graduation through open University system, the phrase "directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies" ought not have employed, these words cannot be set at naught; It cannot be read in isolation. A reading of the explanation as a whole, suggests that 10+2 or graduation/post- graduation through open university system would not be a bar for admission to law courses but the embargo placed is in obtaining such qualification without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies. Thus, it is clear that a candidate without attending the school for 10 years completes 10+2 directly through open university, is not eligible for 5 years integrated law course. Similarly jumping
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR the queue at their convenience i.e., not completing 10+2, directly completing graduation through open university cannot be considered as eligible for admission to 3 years LL.B., course. In a case relating to the candidate wherein, the student studied Senior Secondary school and I year PUC in the regular schooling but II PUC in private, this Court held that there is no bar for the candidate to complete +2 course in private (W.P.No.10458/2016 DD 29.08.2016). Applying the same principles, this Court in (W.P.No.55888/2014) has held that studying in private for II PUC would not be a bar to the student to get admission to 5 year Law course. As a sequel, it cannot be said that a candidate who has completed the 3 years degree course/first degree through open university system after successfully completing 10+2 in a regular schooling is not eligible for admission to 3 year Law course. Likewise, the students who have obtained +2 certificate through Open University system without having basic qualification i.e. 10th are not eligible for admission in five year law course. The clarification issued of the Bar Council of India dated 03.11.2015 addressed to the Upa lokayukta is binding on the BCI. It is considering the complaint of six students of law college as
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR regards the eligibility of students for admission to law courses alleging refusal of examination fee by the Karnataka State Law University, the clarification was issued. Based on the said clarification, colleges have admitted the students for law courses. Resisting such a clarification has become unavailable.
23. In this background, the factual aspects of the cases involved herein, are analysed as follows:
W.P.No.56941-946/2014, petitioners 1 to 5 were denied admission for 5 years Law course as they completed II PUC or (+2), through open university, Admission was refused to respondent No.6 for possessing low percentage.
Notwithstanding completing degree bridge course equivalent to II PUC through open university and securing required percentage of marks to join B.A. LL.B., course, the petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to admission for five years Law course subject to production of certificates for having completed Higher Secondary school examination and the I PUC. Petitioner No.6 has completed 2nd PUC in regular course, however he had not secured the required percentage of marks to join B.A., LL.B course, he joined degree bridge course through Open university
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR (equivalent to II PUC) and has secured required percentage of marks to join the B.A., LL.B course. The university ignoring the marks secured through open university refused the admission, which cannot be sustained. Petitioner No.6 is eligible for admission to 5 years LL.B course.
W.P.No.51770/2015 - the petitioner had failed in Higher Secondary school examination, then completed successfully the same through open university, further studied PUC in CBSE and graduation through Manasa Bharati University [three years course]. There is no inhibition for the university to approve the admission to 3 year LL.B. course subject to recognition of Manasa Bharti University.
W.P.No.57599/2015 - the petitioner completed 10th standard and I year PUC in regular course. II PUC in private and degree in regular course, as such the University cannot deny the approval of admission only for the reason that he has completed II PUC through private. The University is directed to approve the admission of the petitioner for three years LL.B. course.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR W.P.No.56213/2016 - the candidate has completed the X std in distinction through regular Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board and thereafter completed her commercial practice conducted by the Board of Technical Examination, Department of Technical Education, Bangalore. Subsequently, completed 3rd and 4th semester B.Com examination through regular course and III year B.Com. degree examination through Karnataka State Open University during April/May, 2014. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the university shall approve the admission of the petitioner to three year LL.B. course. W.P.58495/2016 - the petitioner has completed the Higher Secondary schooling, +2 through open university (Degree bridge course equivalent to 10+2) and the three years degree course through CMJ University, Meghalaya. The petitioner is entitled to admission for three years law course subject to production of recognition certificate of CMJ university, Meghalaya.
W.P.63750/2016 - the petitioner is a OBC candidate. She has completed her 10th standard, 3 years Diploma course and BBA [three years course] through distance education. There is no dispute regarding the eligibility as
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR per the distance education is concerned. The proviso to Rule 5 makes it manifestly clear that a candidate who has completed +2 Higher Secondary pass certificate or I degree certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method, shall be considered as eligible for admission. The reason for denying admission for the candidate is with respect to low percentage. Indisputably, the candidate has secured 42.36%. Rule 7 of the BCI Rules prescribes 42% of the total marks in case of OBC students. Hence, the university shall approve the admission of the petitioner to the 3 years LLB., course.
11.6 It is further contention of learned counsel that in view of the judgments rendered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court and the Division Bench of this Court cited hereinabove, the petitioner/Javed is entitled and eligible for admission to three years' LL.B Course as per the regulations of the Bar Council of India. Learned counsel also contends that notification dated 20.5.2011 issued by Government of Maharashtra has granted equivalence of 10th and 12th to those who have passed
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR preparatory program and first year of graduation and therefore, the petitioner/Javed cannot be denied admission on the ground that the preparatory program done prior to his graduation of 1st BA to be not equivalent to PUC or 10 + 2. In view of the judgments rendered by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court and the Division Bench of this Court cited supra, the same benefit would have to be extended to the petitioner/Javed also. On these grounds, he seeks to allow the petition and consequently direct the respondents to declare petitioner/Javed as eligible for admission to three years' LL.B Course under the KSLU.
(iv) Arguments advanced by learned counsel - Sri Saikiran B Naik for the petitioner/Yuvaraj in W.P. No.105810/2024
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Yuvaraj vehemently contends that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent university is perverse, illegal, arbitrary and in violation to the BCI Rules and Regulations. It is contended by him that in order to be eligible for admission to a three years' LL.B Course, firstly, a student
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR is required to have passed three years Bachelor's degree program from the recognized university and secondly, he should have obtained 10+2 secondary/higher secondary schooling. It is further contended by the learned counsel that neither the rules nor the regulations of the BCI excludes ITI course in lieu of PUC or 11th & 12th standards when such a student wants to pursue three years' LL.B degree course. It is also contended by him that the petitioner/Yuvaraj having studied two years ITI course, which is equivalent to PUC/11th & 12th before obtaining the valid three years degree from the recognized University, is eligible for admission for three years LL.B Course. Therefore, the respondents rejecting the admission on the ground of eligibility is perverse, illegal and contrary to the BCI rules and regulations. He further contends that when the BCI itself provides ITI to be equivalent to PUC, the college or the Law University cannot insist on the students to have studied and
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR completed only pre-university or 11th & 12th standards prior to their completion of 1st year Bachelor degree.
12.1 It is also further contended by the learned counsel - Sri Naik that the Circular referred to by the respondent-University prescribes a certificate in a language and a subject from the PU board, whereas petitioner - Yuvaraj completed his three years' graduation from a recognized university by studying a language and other subjects during his course of study in the university. Therefore, the petitioner - Yuvaraj having studied the language and the subject in the graduation, the requisite conditions sought in the circular are fulfilled. Therefore, rejection of application of the petitioner - Yuvaraj for admission to three years' LL.B Course is highly arbitrary, illegal, perverse and hence the same requires to be quashed and consequently to issue a direction to the respondents - KSLU and the college to permit the petitioner - Yuvaraj to pursue three years' LL.B course as he fulfils all the requirements as per the regulations and
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR the circular. On these grounds, learned counsel - Sri Naik seeks to allow the petition and consequently quash the endorsement issued by the respondent - University and permit the petitioner to pursue three years' LL.B Course.
(v) Arguments advanced by learned counsel Sri. Pavan B. Doddati for the respondent - University
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the KSLU contends that the petitioner - Javed claims to have secured a B.A. degree from the Open University without having completed the basic qualification of 10 + 2 or PUC, which is the primary requirement or basic qualification for admission to three years' LL.B. Course. It is further contended by learned counsel that admittedly it is the case of the petitioner - Javed that he has passed preparatory program directly from YCMOU, Nashik which made him eligible for pursuing Bachelor's Degree in Arts (B.A.) under the same university. But the fact remains that the basic qualification as required as per the Rules of Legal
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Education-2008, is not complied and not fulfilled. Therefore, when the petitioner does not fulfill the necessary mandatory legal requirements as contemplated under the Rules of Legal Education - 2008 formulated by the BCI, he would not be eligible as a matter of right to pursue his three years' LL.B Course.
13.1 Learned counsel further contends that the BCI is a statutory body constituted by virtue of Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961. He further contends that the BCI being the highest regulatory body of the legal education, it is entitled to lay down certain standards of legal education in the legal profession. He further contends that on bare perusal of Sections 7, 15 and 24 of the Advocates Act- 1961, it is seen that the BCI is vested with the rule making powers for the benefit of the legal profession and legal education. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the very purpose of the legislation of the Rules of Legal Education - 2008 is to improve the standards of legal profession and legal education.
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR 13.2 Learned counsel further contends that the curriculum which was prepared more than a decade ago had to be revamped to suit it to the present requirement or bring it in tune with the present day international standards of legal education and legal practice. Accordingly, the BCI took up the task of changing the curriculum in consultation with the University and State Bar Council and in exercise of its plenary powers, 'Rules of Legal Education - 2008' were framed, which was approved and adopted by the BCI in its meeting held on 14.9.2008 vide resolution No.110/2008.
13.3 It is further contended by learned counsel that the BCI being a regulatory body, considering all these aspects and in order to have standards of legal education, formulated the Rules of Legal Education-2008. The BCI is empowered to formulate legal education rules to insist or maintain a minimum level of general education to be a pre-requisite for taking up or studying the law course,
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR mainly three years LL.B course and five years LL.B Course.
13.4 Learned counsel further contends that in the present case, we are concerned with the admission to three years' LL.B course. He contends that the explanation to Rule 5 prescribes that degrees obtained through distance education or open university courses are approved by the BCI. But, the candidates should have the basic qualification and cannot jump the queue as per their convenience or to their advantage. He further contends that explanation to Rule -5 requires that the candidate should have the basic qualification in order to be qualified to be admitted to that course. For example, the basic qualification for a Plus 2 course would be 10th standard and for a degree course would mean Plus 2 or equivalent etc., It is further contended that when a candidate, without attending the school for 10 years, completes 10 + 2 directly through open university, is not eligible for 5 years integrated law course. Similarly, when a student
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR has not completed 10 + 2 directly and complete the graduation course through open university, cannot be considered to be eligible for admission to three years LL.B course.
13.5 Learned counsel for respondents rely upon the following judgments in their favour:
a) Judgment rendered by the leaned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Deepika Bhat -vs-
Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.19608/2010 dated 13th March 2014.
b) Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deepika Bhat -vs- Union of India and others in Writ Appeal No.1604/2014 dated 29th July, 2015.
(vi) Arguments advanced by learned counsel Smt. Archana A Magadum for the respondent -
Karnataka State Bar Council
14. Learned counsel appearing for the State Bar Council contends that the Karnataka State Bar Council is governed by the rules and regulations formulated by the
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR BCI. She concurs and supports the arguments putforth by learned counsel - Sri Pavan B. Doddatti for the University. She also contends that if a student has not fulfilled the necessary requirements as per the State Bar Council Rules and Regulations and that of the BCI, then the University as per the Rules of Legal Education - 2008, is justified in rejecting the application to pursue three years' LL.B Course, for want of basic qualification and necessary requirements as stipulated.
14.1 Learned counsel has produced copy of the proceedings of the committee constituted for consideration of applications for enrolment held on 29th September 2014 and relies on clauses (4) and (5) of the said proceedings. As per clause-(4) of the said proceedings, the candidates who have obtained a law degree after prosecuting 10+2 or graduation/post graduation through open university system directly without having basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for enrolment and as per clause (5), the candidates who have obtained 3
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR years law degree after prosecuting the first degree through open university after completing regular 10+2 education are also eligible for enrolment. It is contended by the learned counsel that both the petitioners viz., Javed and Yuvaraj would not be eligible to pursue three years law course, in view of the bar in the Rule-5 of Legal Education -2008 framed by the BCI.
14.2 In the case of petitioner/Javed, since he did not possess a basic qualification and the preparatory exam passed prior to the graduation being not equivalent PUC or 10+2 in the State of Karnataka, is not eligible to pursue his 3 years' law course in the state of Karnataka as it runs contrary to the Rules of Legal Edcuation-2008.
(vii) Arguments advanced by learned counsel Sri. Rajashekhar Burji for respondent-Bar Council of India.
Learned counsel for the BCI concurs with the arguments put forth by the counsel for the KSLU and the State Bar Council. He vehemently contends that in order
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR to elevate the standard of the law graduates, lawyers and the legal fraternity, the Rules of Legal Education-2008 was formulated, which was done in consultation with all stake holders and legal/Educational Experts. He further contends that the validity of the Rules of Legal Education-2008 has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel further contends that if the student does not possess basic educational qualification, then he or she would not be eligible to pursue LLB course. He also submits that in accordance to the Rules of Legal Education-2008, the BCI has also made its rules in conformity to the same; which would be binding to all the State Law Universities. Learned counsel further contends that when rules are clearly formulated for legal education, it is not for the Courts to step into the forte of legislation of rules of education, neither can it tinker with it in the guise of judicial review. Learned counsel sustains the rejection of admission of petitioners to the 3 year Law Course.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR
(viii) Consideration
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties, the judgments relied and perused the records carefully.
16. In order to decide these two cases, it is relevant to go through Rules of Legal Education-2008 formulated by the BCI. Chapter II of the rules of legal education deals with standards of professional legal education. Rule 3 deals with recognized universities; Rule 4 deals with law courses; and Rule 5 deals with eligibility for admission. It is relevant to extract Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules of Legal Education-2008, which are as under:
"3. Recognized Universities The State Bar Council shall enroll as Advocate only such candidates, who have passed from University, approved affiliated Centre of Legal Education /Departments of the recognized University as approved by the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India shall notify a list of such Universities and the Centres of Legal Education
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR prior to the commencement of each academic year in the prescribed manner and also put in website of Bar Council of India a list of universities and Centres of Legal Education as amended from time to time. Each State Bar Council shall ensure that applicants passing out from such a recognized Universities and of its approved affiliated law Centre of Legal Education are enrolled.
4. Law courses There shall be two courses of law leading to Bachelors Degree in Law as hereunder,
(a) A three year degree course in law undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors' Degree in any discipline of studies from a University or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India.
Provided that admission to such a course of study for a degree in law is obtained from a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
(b) A double degree integrated course combining Bachelors' Degree course as designed by the University concerned in any discipline of study together with the Bachelors' degree course in law, which shall be of not less than five years'
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR duration leading to the integrated degree in the respective discipline of knowledge and Law together.
Provided that such an integrated degree program in law of the University is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
Provided further that in the case of integrated double degree course the entire double degree course can be completed in one year less than the total time for regularly completing the two courses one after the other in regular and immediate succession, meaning thereby, that if the degree course in the basic discipline, such as in Arts, Science, Social Science, Commerce, Management, Fine Arts, Engineering, Technology or medicine etc. is of three years' duration of studies, integrated course in law with the basic degree in the discipline could be completed in five years' time but where the degree course in basic discipline takes four or five years, the integrated degree in law with such degree course in the discipline would take one year less for completing in regular time than the total time taken for the two degrees taken separately if completed back to back.
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Explanation 1: Double degree integrated course such as BA., LL.B. can be completed within (3+3 -
1) i.e. 5 years. But if one intends to do B.Tech., LL.B. it can be done in (4+3-1) i.e., 6 years. Explanation 2: Suppose in a University one can have a two years' graduation in any social science leading to BA degree, in that case also the composite double degree integrated course leading to BA, LL.B. would be of five years duration because double degree integrated course cannot be of less than five years' duration.
5. Eligibility for admission:
a) Three Year Law Degree Course: An applicant who has graduated in any discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of Parliament or by a State legislature or an equivalent national institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence, may apply for a three years' degree program in law leading to conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular program conducted by a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR
(b) Integrated Degree Program: An applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondary School course ('+2') or equivalent (such as 11+1, 'A' level in Senior School Leaving certificate course) from a recognized University of India or outside or from a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or recognized by the Union or by a State Government or from any equivalent institution from a foreign country recognized by the government of that country for the purpose of issue of qualifying certificate on successful completion of the course, may apply for and be admitted into the program of the Centres of Legal Education to obtain the integrated degree in law with a degree in any other subject as the first degree from the University whose such a degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment. Provided that applicants who have obtained + 2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission in the Integrated Five Years course or three years' LL.B. course, as the case may be.
Explanation: The applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation / post graduation through open Universities system directly without having any
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses."
17. In order to have standards of legal education, BCI formulated Rules of Legal Education, 2008. Rule-5(a) of the said Rules is applicable in the present case and in the light of Rule-5(a), it has to be seen whether the petitioners are eligible for entry into Three Year Law Degree Course.
18. In the case of K. Sakthi Rani -vs- The Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and others
- (2010)04 MAD CK 0404, the Division Bench of Madras High Court has culled out several judgments of the Apex Court at paragraphs 4 to 10, which read as under:
4. In J.S. Jadhav -vs- Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court has defined legal profession as follows:
Advocacy is not a craft but a calling; a profession wherein devotion to duty constitutes the hallmark. Sincerity of performance and earnestness of endeavour are the two wings that will bar aloft the
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR advocate to the tower of success. Given these virtues other qualifications will follow of their own account. This is the reason why legal profession is regarded to be a noble one. But it cannot be allowed to become a sorriest of trades.
5. Similarly, in In Re: Sanjiv Datta and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
It is in the hands of the members of the legal profession to improve the quality of service they render both to the litigant public and to the courts, and to brighten their image in the society. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but also the administration of justice, which is the foundation of the civilized society. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members played enviable role in public life.
6. A good legal education is a sine quo non for creating a good lawyer. Such a legal education is the basis and foundation for creating a good and competent Judge as well. "
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. In P.D. Gupta Vs. Ram Murti and Another, the Honourable Apex Court observed that the administration of justice is the concern of Bench and Bar as well and the Bar is the principal ground for recruiting Judges.
8. The passage from Harry R.Blythe, 21 Green Bag, 224, may be usefully quoted in this context:
Great God! the hour has come when we must clear the legal fields from poison and from fear; we must remould our standards-build them higher, and clear the air as though by cleansing fire, weed out the damming traitors to the law, restore her to her ancient place of awe.
9. Sri.Dr.C.Radhakrishnan, the first vice-president of Republic India, has lamented thus:
Our Colleges of law do not hold a place of high esteem either at home or abroad, nor has law become an arena of profound scholarship and enlightened research.
10. It is said, "Legal Education is essentially a multi- disciplined, multi-purpose education which can develop the human resources and idealism needed to strengthen the legal system.... A lawyer, a product of such education would be able to
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR contribute to national development and social change in a much more constructive manner.
19. At this juncture, it is to be stated that according to Dr.B.R. Ambedkar, Education is a weapon of creation of mental and educational development, weapon of eradication of social slavery of economic development of political freedom.
The progress of any Society depends on the progress of education in that society. Therefore, legal education is all the more important and plays a pivotal role in shaping the country's legal system. So also the Graduates from the field of Law and the lawyers enrolled in the Bar under the Advocates Act play a crucial role in the development of the country and also internationally.
20. The grievance of the petitioner/Javed is that though he has successfully completed preparatory
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR programme prior to the First Degree Certificate (graduation course), the college and the University have rejected admission to him to three years' Law Degree Course on the ground that he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements and criteria laid down in Rule - 5(a) of the Rules of Legal Education-2008.
21. Factual aspects of the matter are that petitioner
- Javed has completed preparatory programme of six months in June 2006. On completion of the preparatory programme, the petitioner enrolled for Bachelor's Degree in Arts (B.A.) from YCMOU, Nashik in the year 2014 and completed Bachelor's Degree Course in May-2024. After completing the Bachelor's Degree - B.A. through Open University, petitioner - Javed approached the ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law College, which is affiliated to the KSLU seeking admission to Three Year Law Degree Course. It is during this time, on perusal of his educational qualification and qualifying documents, the college and the University denied giving admission to the petitioner -
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Javed for Three Year Law Degree Course on the ground that he did not possess 10+2 or other equivalent educational qualification documents and that the educational qualification pursed by him from the YCMOU is not a valid educational qualification and neither is it recognized or approved by the State of Karnataka and the KSLU.
22. Apparently, there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner - Javed having completed the preparatory programme of six months. It is also a fact that petitioner
- Javed did not possess 10+2 or other equivalent educational qualification. Further, having failed in the 10th standard, Javed opted to do preparatory programme conducted by YCMOU, which is a six months course. On successful completion of the said preparatory programme, he earned Bachelor's Degree in Arts (B.A.) from YCMOU, Nashik.
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR
23. Now, the question that arises for consideration is "whether the educational qualification secured by petitioner - Javed would entitle him to take up three years' law degree course as per the eligibility criteria, in the ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law College, which is affiliated to KSLU ? "
24. In pursuance of the order dated 17th January 2025 passed by this Court, the respondent - State has filed an affidavit through its Deputy Director, Department of School Education, Pre-University, wherein it is stated at paragraphs 3 and 4 as under:
3. I state that, ITI course is equal to PUC or 10+2 in terms of the Government circular dated 27.02.2016. I further state that, along with ITI course the candidate should complete one language course and one subject studied and passed through distance education mode or he should pass the language exam and one subject exam, conducted by the PU Board, in that event, ITI course is equivalent with the PUC or 10 +2.
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. I state that, in respect of 'bridge course preparatory programme conducted by the 'Yashawantharao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik' is not considered as equivalent to PU or 10+2 in the State of Karnataka. The copy of the circular dated 27.02.2016 is produced herewith and marked as Document No.1.
25. At this stage, it is appropriate to extract once again Rule-5(a), Rule-5(b) and Proviso & Explanation to Rule-5 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 for better understanding and ready reference:
5. Eligibility for admission:
a) Three Year Law Degree Course: An applicant who has graduated in any discipline of knowledge from a University established by an Act of Parliament or by a State legislature or an equivalent national institution recognized as a Deemed to be University or foreign University recognized as equivalent to the status of an Indian University by an authority competent to declare equivalence, may apply for a three years' degree program in law leading to conferment of LL.B. degree on successful completion of the regular
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR program conducted by a University whose degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment.
(b) Integrated Degree Program: An applicant who has successfully completed Senior Secondary School course ('+2') or equivalent (such as 11+1, 'A' level in Senior School Leaving certificate course) from a recognized University of India or outside or from a Senior Secondary Board or equivalent, constituted or recognized by the Union or by a State Government or from any equivalent institution from a foreign country recognized by the government of that country for the purpose of issue of qualifying certificate on successful completion of the course, may apply for and be admitted into the program of the Centres of Legal Education to obtain the integrated degree in law with a degree in any other subject as the first degree from the University whose such a degree in law is recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of enrolment. Provided that applicants who have obtained + 2 Higher Secondary Pass Certificate or First Degree Certificate after prosecuting studies in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission in the Integrated Five Years course or three years' LL.B. course, as the case may be.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Explanation: The applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation / post graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses."
26. In the present case, the petitioner - Javed would fall within the category of Rule 5(a), which is for Three Year Law Degree Course. The petitioner - Javed claims to fall within the proviso to Rule-5 for being eligible for admission to Three Year Law Degree Course. On a careful perusal of the Explanation to Rule-5, it is seen that the applicants who have obtained 10 + 2 or graduation/post- graduation through Open Universities System directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law courses.
27. In the case of petitioner - Javed, admittedly he has done preparatory programme of six months. Therefore, it is not 10 + 2 course and he has also done graduation from the YCMOU, which is a open University.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Therefore, under the said circumstances, there would be requirement of the petitioner - Javed to establish and place on record and satisfy the college and the University, wherein he is seeking admission for Three Year Law Degree Course that he possess 10+2 or other equivalent educational qualification and that he has done the graduation from the Open University system with basic qualification for prosecuting such studies. The petitioner - Javed has not placed any material before the ASGSS Mahatma Gandhi Law College or the KSLU for recognizing the preparatory programme done by him to be equivalent to 10+2 educational qualification. Though he has produced the material to show that the State of Maharashtra having given equivalence to the preparatory programme to 10+2 educational qualification and the UGC having granted recognition to the courses conducted by the Open University at YCMOU, Nashik, no material has been produced by the petitioner to show that the KSLU or the State of Karnataka recognizing preparatory programme of
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR six months as equivalent to 10+ 2 educational qualification.
28. In view of the above, the vehement argument putforth by learned counsel for petitioner-Javed though sounds very attractive and impressive for consideration, cannot be appreciated in view of the specific bar provided in the Explanation to Rule 5. The Explanation to Rule-5 specifically prescribes and mandates that the applicants who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/post graduation through Open Universities System directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies are not eligible for admission in the law course. In the Explanation to Rule-5, the wordings used viz., 'basic qualification' refer to schooling from 1st to 10th standard and thereafter +2 qualification and if a student obtains the educational qualification from the Open University, it is necessary and mandatory to have basic qualification for prosecuting such degree, failing which the student would be ineligible for admission to law courses.
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR
29. In the case of petitioner - Javed, admittedly he has done preparatory programme of six months, which is not recognized to be 10 + 2 course in the State of Karnataka or by the KSLU and so also neither the KSLU nor the State of Karnataka has given the equivalent status to the Preparatory Programme secured by the petitioner as 10 +2.
30. Under the circumstances, I am in agreement with the learned counsel representing the respondents that there is a bar prescribed in the Explanation to Rule 5 and there is a clear requirement of basic educational qualification prescribed in the Rule 5 to be eligible to take admission to the Law Degree Course and the same having not been fulfilled, the respondents are justified in rejecting the petitioner - Javed's admission to the Three Year Law Degree Course.
31. Now coming to the case of petitioner - Yuvaraj, he claims to have completed SSLC from the
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR Government High School, Chittavadagi, Hosapete and pursued ITI course from the Vishweshwaraiya Private ITI, Hosapete, Bellary and thereafter completed B.A. Degree from Vijayanagara Sri Krishadevaraja University, Bellary. Thereafter, petitioner - Yuvaraj applied to Shivapriya Law College, Koppal for pursuing Three Year Law Degree Course. However, the law college and the KSLU rejected the application of petitioner - Yuvaraj on the ground that he has not fulfilled eligibility conditions for admission to Three Year Law Degree Course.
32. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner - Yuvaraj has not done PUC or ('+2') after completing SSLC. He has completed the ITI Course under the Craftsman Training Scheme in the engineering trade of Electrician. The subjects that are taken up by the petitioner - Yuvaraj in the ITI course are: 1) Practical; 2) Trade Theory; 3) Workshop Cal & Science; 4) Engineering Drawing; 5) Employability Skill. Admittedly, National Trade Certificate
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR will be issued by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India.
33. Now, the point for consideration is whether the SSLC and ITI course completed by the petitioner - Yuvaraj can be considered as equivalent to 10 +2 qualification?.
34. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mr. Abubakar S/o MD Irgan Sab -vs- Karantaka State Law University and others in Writ Petition No.200642/2021 (EDN-AD), wherein a similar situation of an ITI student after completion of graduation seeking admission for Three Year Law Degree Course arose for consideration and it was allowed by this Court directing the respondents therein to admit the petitioner therein to the Three Year LL.B course.
35. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR the case of Sri Bharath Kumar -vs- KSLU in Writ Petition No.106322/2023 (EDN-RES), wherein a similar situation of an ITI student after completion of graduation seeking admission for Three Year Law Degree Course arose for consideration and it was allowed by this Court and the student therein was directed to be admitted to Three Year Law Degree Course subject to fulfilling other eligibility criteria.
36. In the light of the principles enunciated in the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for allowing the present petition applying the principle of pari materia with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner - Yuvaraj to enroll for Three Year Law Degree Course.
37. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and has filed a memo relying upon the Circular dated 27.2.2018 issued by the Government of Karnataka,
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR wherein subject was 'clarification regarding equivalent educational qualifications/ Courses for SSLC, PUC and Degree/Graduate level education'. In the said circular, it is stated that Three Years Diploma Course or Two Years ITI course or Two Years Vocational Diploma (JOC/JODC/JLDC) is equivalent to PUC subject to the condition that such candidate should complete one language course and one subject studied and passed through distance education mode or he should pass one language exam and one subject exam conducted by the Pre-University Board.
38. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishnamurthy D.H. and Another v. State of Karnataka and others in Writ Petition No.24206/2021 (S-KAT), wherein in similar circumstances, it is held that the petitioners therein having not fulfilled the requirement of passing one language course and one curriculum subject (through distance education mode), the
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR job oriented Pre-University Diploma done by the petitioners therein cannot be considered equivalent to PUC and accordingly dismissed the said petition.
39. In view of the above, the plea made by the petitioner-Yuvaraj with regard to ITI course being equivalent to PUC is farfetched and cannot be accepted in the present case.
40. On careful analysis of the arguments putforth by the learned counsels, it is apparently clear that the petitioner - Yuvaraj has done ITI course, but has not produced any document or material to show that he has completed one language course and one subject studied and passed through distance education mode or having passed language exam and one subject exam conducted by the PU Board. No doubt, the petitioner - Yuvaraj has completed his graduation from a regular University and that by itself would not entitle him to be eligible for Three Year Law Degree Course. The petitioner - Yuvaraj would
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR be barred under Rule - 5 of Rules of Legal Education, 2008 as he has not completed the basic qualification of 10+2 to be eligible for enrolment to Three Year Law Degree Course.
41. I am in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner - Yuvaraj has not made out any good or valid case to show his eligibility for Three Year Law Degree Course, in view of not having produced the necessary documents as required by the college and the University.
42. On the question of equivalence of a degree or a course, it is for the State Government to take the appropriate decision. This aspect has been dealtwith in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others -vs- Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others, (2019) 2 SCC 404, wherein it is held at paragraph-26 as under:
26. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation which has been placed on the
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR judgment in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] in the subsequent decision in Anita [State of Punjab v. Anita, (2015) 2 SCC 170 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 329] . The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on the provisions of Rule 10(a)(ii). Absent such a rule, it would not be permissible to draw an inference that a higher qualification necessarily presupposes the acquisition of another, albeit lower, qualification. The prescription of qualifications for a post is a matter of recruitment policy. The State as the employer is entitled to prescribe the qualifications as a condition of eligibility. It is no part of the role or function of judicial review to expand upon the ambit of the prescribed qualifications. Similarly, equivalence of a qualification is not a matter which can be determined in exercise of the power of judicial review. Whether a particular qualification should or should not be regarded as equivalent is a matter for the State, as the recruiting authority, to determine. The decision in Jyoti K.K. [Jyoti K.K. v. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 15 SCC 596 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 664] turned on a specific statutory rule under which the holding of a higher qualification
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR could presuppose the acquisition of a lower qualification. The absence of such a rule in the present case makes a crucial difference to the ultimate outcome. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment [Zahoor Ahmad Rather v. State of J&K, 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 936] of the learned Single Judge and in coming to the conclusion that the appellants did not meet the prescribed qualifications. We find no error in the decision [Imtiyaz Ahmad v. Zahoor Ahmad Rather, LPA (SW) No. 135 of 2017, decided on 12-10-2017 (J&K)] of the Division Bench.
43. I am of the opinion that the judgments in Mr.Abubakkar .vs. KSLU and in Bharath Kumar .vs. KSLU passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court would not be helpful to the case on hand.
44. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and on appreciation of the entire material on record in the
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7551 WP No. 105810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 105249 of 2024 HC-KAR light of the principles enunciated in judgments relied upon by the learned counsels, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners in these writ petitions have not made out any good ground or cogent reason to warrant judicial review or intervention in respect of rejection of their admission to Three Year Law Degree Course for want of necessary requirements, basic qualification as enumerated in Rule 5 of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008.
45. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS/-
Ct: MCK