Karnataka High Court
Sri Balakrishna K V vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2013
Equivalent citations: 2013 (3) AKR 359
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
W.P.Nos.26189-26190/2010(EDN-RES)
c/w. W.P.Nos.32737-32738/2010(EDN-RES)
IN W.P.Nos.26189-26190/2010:
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Balakrishna K.V.
S/o Venkataramanappa
Aged about 33 years
1st year LL.B., - 5 years course,
Vidyodaya Law College,
Tumkur.
2. Kum.Arundathi G.C.
D/o Chikkappaiah
Aged about 18 years
1st year LL.B., - 5 years course,
Vidyodaya Law College,
Tumkur. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri Sachin B.S., Adv. for Dharmashree Assts., Advs.)
AND:
1. Unionof India
Rep.by Department of Law,
Parliament Bhavan
New Delhi.
2. Karnataka State Law University
Navanagara
Hubli,
2
Rep.by Administrative Officer/
Vice Chancellor. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri S.Kalyan Basavaraj, ASG for R1,
Smt. Archana Murthy P., Adv. for
Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, Advs for R2)
IN W.P.Nos.32737-32738/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Kum.Priyanka
D/o Sri Prabhakara K.,
Aged about 18 years
r/at Ramagiri Kakyana
Laila Post, Belthangady Taluk,
D.K.Dist.
2. Kum. Shwetha Kumari Y.K.
d/O Vamana Naik
aged about 18 years
r/at Yelkanakatte (House)
Ariyappady Post,
Peradala (Via) Kasaragod District,
Kerala State. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri Sachin B.S., Adv. for Dharmashree Assts., Advs.)
AND:
Karnataka State Law University,
Navanagar,
Hubli,
Rep.by President/Principal. ... RESPONDENT
(Smt. Archana Murthy P., Adv. for
Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, Advs for R2)
W.Ps.26189-26190/2010 are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
regulation governing the 5 year B.A., LL.B., course dated
25.5.2010 in so far as item No.15(A) under the heading
3
promotion is concerned, issued by the respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-A and etc.
W.Ps.32737-32738/2010 are filed under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the
regulation governing the 5 year B.A., LL.B. course dt.25.5.2010
in so far as item No.15(a) under the heading 'promotion' is
concerned, issued by the respondent, vide Annexure-A and tec.
These petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the Regulation framed by the Karnataka State Law University, Hubli, the respondent - herein governing the Five Year B.A. LL.B. course insofar as they prescribe in Regulation 15(a) under the heading 'promotion', a requirement that in order to be promoted to the next academic year in the five year law course, a student will have to pass atleast in one subject in each semester.
2. On 29.11.2011, when this writ petition was listed for consideration, this Court passed the following order:
"In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the Regulations Governing 5 Year B.A.LL.B. Course framed by the Karnataka State Law University - 2nd respondent herein.4
The facts involved in these petitions stated in brief are that the petitioners are the students of Vidyodaya Law College, Tumkur. They have opted for 5 Year B.A.LL.B. The 2nd respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 86 read with Section 34 (2) (ii) and Section 49 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009 has framed Regulation known as Regulations Governing Five Year B.A.LL.B. Integrated Degree Course in Law. Regulations have come into force with effect from the academic year 2009-10. These Regulations deal with the duration of the course, instructions and training to be imparted, eligibility criteria for admission, attendance and also provision for permission to the next academic session. Regulation 15 deals with the promotion of the student to the next year. Regulation 15(a) which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under:
"No student shall be promoted to the next year of the course unless he/she has passed in a minimum of one subject in each semester."
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this Regulation is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it hands down discriminatory treatment against the students who have opted for three years law degree course.
Inviting attention of the Court to the Regulations Governing the 3 Year LL.B. Course which are produced at Annexure-B, particularly Regulation 14, counsel points out that the provision made for promotion of the students to the next higher class does not incorporate any such 5 restriction and provides that every student shall be promoted to the next higher class irrespective of the fact that he has failed in any of the papers prescribed for the study.
Having given my careful consideration to these contentions and having perused the Regulations Governing 3 Year LL.B., particularly the relevant Regulation as referred to herein above, I find that the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners proceeds on the footing that the students studying in both these courses must be treated in a similar manner in the matter of granting promotion to the next higher class.
There is no foundation laid in the pleadings in the writ petitions to substantiate the contentions regarding discrimination, in that, the pattern of examination conducted for both courses, the nature of syllabus prescribed for both the courses is not enclosed to the writ petition nor is it forthcoming in the pleadings. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to make available the relevant materials regarding syllabus and the examination pattern for both the courses."
3. The petitioners have not made available relevant materials regarding the syllabus and the examination pattern for both the courses namely the Three Year LL.B and the Five Year LL.B. courses. However, the respondent - University has 6 filed a detailed statement of objections in W.P.Nos.26189- 26190/2010.
4. In the light of the statement of objections filed providing the factual background for framing the Regulations in question, I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and carefully considered the entire materials on record. It is evident that the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009 (Karnataka Act No.11 of 2009) (for short, 'the Act') has been passed with an object 'to establish and incorporate a Law University dedicated to Study and Research of Law through systematic instruction, teaching and training in law and to inculcate among citizens a sense of meaningful concern for the law in a system of parliamentary democracy, in the State of Karnataka.' This is evident from the preamble of the Act.
5. Under Section 34 (2) (ii) of the Act, power to make regulations regarding the course of study insofar as they are not covered by the Ordinance is conferred on the Academic Council. Section 49 of the Act provides for power to make Regulations exercising all or any of the powers enumerated in Section 34.
7
6. Section 86 of the Act which deals with transitory powers of the first Vice Chancellor provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the first Vice-Chancellor may with the previous approval of the Chancellor and subject to or otherwise discharge all or any of the functions of the University for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act and for that purpose, exercise any powers or perform any duties which by the Act are to be exercised or performed by any authority of the University, until such authority comes into existence as provided by the Act. In fact, power is conferred on the first Vice-Chancellor under this Section to make such Statute as may be necessary for the functioning of the University in consultation with the Chancellor. In exercise of this power, Regulation governing the Five Year LL.B. Integrated Degree Course in Law and the Regulation governing the Three Year LL.B. Course in Law are framed by the first Vice-Chancellor.
7. Regulation 15 pertaining to the Five Year Law course makes it mandatory for a student to pass atleast in one subject in each semester to seek promotion to the next year of the course. Whereas, Regulation 14 pertaining to the Three Year Law course in respect of promotion provides as under: 8
"(a) Every student shall be promoted to the next higher class irrespective of the fact that he has failed in any of the papers prescribed for the study.
(b) Students are required to successfully complete the entire course within six years from the admission to the course."
8. The grievance of the petitioners herein, who are pursuing their studies in the Five Year law course, is that the Regulation framed by the Vice Chancellor is discriminatory inasmuch as the petitioners who are pursuing the Five Year law course are deprived of an opportunity to get promotion to the next academic year, in the event they fail in any of the subjects in each semester, whereas, the students pursuing Three Year law course do not have such a restriction.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both categories of students aim at securing law degree and the purpose and object with which they pursue their studies, whether it is Five Year or Three Year law course being the same, they cannot be discriminated against in the matter of advantages one has in getting promotion to the next academic year/semester.
9
10. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly refutes these contentions and justifies the action of the University stating that the Regulations are framed with specific object in mind to ensure that Five Year law students who opt for the course after 10+2 examinations at an young age undergo rigorous training and pursue the course with greater commitment and discipline.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on careful consideration of the pleadings and the materials on record, I find that the Karnataka State Law University is the creation of a Statute which has come into existence after the enactment of The Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009. It has got jurisdiction over the entire State of Karnataka. Various institutions offering legal education, which were otherwise affiliated to different Universities in the State, have been brought under a single umbrella of the Karnataka State Law University.
12. Five Year LL.B. Integrated Degree Course in Law provides entry to the students at an early stage of their education i.e. after 10+2. Whereas, for Three Year law course the students are admitted after they complete their bachelor's degree. 10
13. The statement of objections filed by the University emphasizes that different Universities while developing the course curriculum for Five Year LL.B. integrated Degree in Law course have treated it differently compared to Three Year LL.B. course. Both the courses differ at the entry level, in the duration of the course, in the matter of combination of subjects and also in the matter of commitment required for pursuing the studies. Five Year LL.B. course, it is urged in the statement of objections, is experimented to standardize the course which is some what different from the existing course, for catering to specific requirement which have arisen out of challenges of modern age. It is further contended by the respondent - University that having regard to the differentia in the curriculum, the duration, and the nature of the training imparted, both Five Year and Three Year courses cannot be treated on par with each other. As otherwise, it will hit at the very foundation of the principles with which Five Year Integrated Degree in Law course has been designed and implemented.
14. I find considerable force in this stand taken by the University. Petitioners are not justified in drawing parallel to 11 the two courses for the purpose of seeking uniform treatment in the matter of promotion to the next academic year. Any innovative method, adopted by the academic experts out of their experience, intended to introduce higher standards in education with the object of enabling the students to achieve greater excellence by investing more commitment, cannot be discouraged by judicial interference on the basis of the alleged discriminatory treatment.
15. The rule in question imposes a bare minimum requirement of a pass in at least one subject in each semester to move to the next ones. Therefore, what is sought to be initiated is a small step in enforcing seriousness in the studies and greater involvement of the students in the classes and the ongoing training continuously, as against a laid back approach of taking the examination seriously only at the latter stage. For the young and effectively coachable students who have taken the 5 year law course after their 10+2 i.e., the Pre-University classes, the requirement prescribed is a step in right direction.
16. A regulation cannot be attacked stating that it is discriminatory, unless discrimination is practiced amongst persons similarly placed. If certain class of persons are 12 grouped together for the purpose of particular treatment as is done in the present case in respect of Five Year LL.B. students, the persons who are left out of the group and who are not similarly placed cannot be made the subject of comparison to apply, the principle of discriminatory treatment. The accepted doctrine is that 'likes are to be treated alike'. In the instant case, the nature of the syllabus, nature of studies and the intensity of the training imparted for both the courses are different and the age at which the students are admitted to Five Year Course is also different. If the University has kept in mind better standards to be enforced for the students pursuing Five Year Integrated Degree in Law course, this Court will not interfere with such a decision of the University, as otherwise it will result in a retrograde step. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS